In Defense of Regionalism - Languages - http://maxpages.com/defender/regional

   I don't think there is really anything wrong with being a regionalist. We all love our
hometowns. In fact there are many people who are more fond of their hometowns than they are of their home country. We tend to identify ourselves more to our immediate environment, especially place of birth, than to our country as a whole. We can see such fondness to one's immediate place of origin in the proliferation of hometown clubs here in the U.S., for instance. They mushroom all over: the Minalenans, the Lubenians, the Apalitenians, the Fernandinans, the Villa de Bacolor,
the Floridablancans, the Masantolenos, etc. They celebrate the fiestas of their towns here more than they observe Philippine Independence Day. Of course, before other peoples or before the whole world, they all unite under one flag and call themselves Filipinos and of which they are all proud to be. But that's where nationalism has its real place. In the world community. But before other fellow Filipinos, what prevails in their hearts is their attachments to their hometowns, their home province, their fellow Cebuanos (if they are Cebuanos), their fellow Bicolanos (if they are Bicolanos), etc. I'm sure that Ilonggos living in Manila are proud of being Ilonggos, and Iloilo, their hometown, is closer to their hearts. That is a form of regionalism. It can be compared to how you would favor or boost the local team in friendly competetions such as in sports.

But our society is trying to make us just one despite our multi-culture. Yes, we are
indeed one as Filipinos before the whole world, but we are also Ilonggos, Cebuanos,
Pangasinenses, etc. We may be one family, but we are composed of sisters and
brothers, and each of us has a life of his own. Loyal as we may be to the family (or to the father), still when it comes to interest in life we should be a little more independent. Thus, we pursue our goals our own way. A doctor may remain a doctor, and a farmer may remain a farmer. We don't make one become like the other
just because they are siblings. Same way with culture in which each group has got its own. They should remain as such, and we should look at cultural diversity
as better than having just one culture or one main language like in the case of Japan, Korea and Vietnam.

If the establishment makes Cebuano children in Cebu adopt Filipino as their language by taking away their right to use their own language as medium of instruction in their schools there, there'll come a time when these children would
love their adopted language more than their native one. That's just natural and we
can see the same situation on among adopted children loving their adoptive parents
more than their biological parents. It's precisely because they are raised by them. Similarly, in schools that's how they are raised: in Filipino. So, the tendency would be for them to love Filipino (the language that is) more than Cebuano.

My Thorndike Barnhart Advanced Dictionary defines regionalism as "strong and steadfast attachment to a certain region".
Members of DILA (the organization, not the forum) and UNT are advocates of regionalism. They are regionalists first and foremost, and nationalists secondarily.
As one should know, being a regionalist does not imply that he is not a nationalist as well. Except of course, on matters where the two are in conflict with each other.
Tagalogs, for instance, are mostly nationalists for all the obvious reasons we don't have to cite. But many are, at the same time, also regionalists. While they are proud of the nation, they are also proud of their region or province. The Batangueno
and the Caviteno may be both nationalistic before foreigners in that they are proud of their country. But such similarity ends when concern to their respective provinces is brought into consideration. Thus, a Caviteno would certainly be proud of Cavite more than he is proud of Batangas, in the same way as the Batangueno would be prouder of his own province of Batangas. They would lionize their own local cultures and would forget for a moment that they are both Tagalogs as well as Filipinos. That's regionalism, and such can not be avoided, and it's especially true among those that are true-blue, red-blooded and die-hard. Only the "malansang isda" perhaps would not feel that way. But then these two would unite again as regionalists when Calabarzon is pitted against, for instance, Central Luzon, the Cordilleras, or Central Visayas. Thus, regionalism, can become larger in range. But it can become smaller in scope too. People of Taal would certainly be prouder of their own town than they would be of Lipa, though the towns are in the same province. And we can go down further on to the smallest government unit, the barrio or barangay, and then to the purok where pride can be the most intense since the local people there usually see one another almost on an everyday basis. Such local pride could perhaps be the reason why local politics is always intense, and political violence erupt more often. Barrio folks are in more contact with one another than does the general population.
Thus, it is there where the fervor of pride starts its glow.

Am I a regionalist? Yes, I am. And I ain't ashamed to be one! In fact I'm even proud of being one. But I am a nationalist too before the whole world, and consider the Bisayans, Tagalogs, Ilocanos, Pangasinenses, Bicolanos, Ibanags, etc. as my brother-Filipinos.

Cabalen Ernie

P.S.
I'm an internationalist too.
And like what that song says, "We are the world."

The death sentence virtually imposed on our local languages by some insensitive legislators is exacting a toll on our speakers and should not be overlooked or downplayed.

It does not matter if we are "branded" as regionalists. In fact some people like myself feel it an honor being called a regionalist. Ever heard of the saying, "Family first"?

Sign Guestbook

View Guestbook

Visitors: 00508

Page Updated Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:01pm EDT