If you're looking further into the ideas of the Anarchy of Families, you may wish to look into Dante Simbulan's Modern Principalia. He looks into who became a principalia, and why, tracing them back to colonial times. Professions and ideas included.
The reference I have for Philippine History is O.D. Corpuz's The Roots of the Filipino Nation - which I prefer to the Agoncillio textbook both for its completeness and focus on some things that one may not expect from a colonization. As an example, the failed integration of the Filipinos into the Spanish system due to colonists hopping the ship at Acapulco and never making it, reducing the check on the power of religious organizations.
One of the sections that stuck with me described the constant push and pull of early colonization - friars and Spaniards would go out and bring the pre-Filipinos into the pueblos to proselytize to them. Because there were too few Spanish to truly guard all the outlying pueblos, the people often melted away back into the countryside, where the priests would have to follow them into barrios and establish churches there. This to show that the early colonization was far less orderly and uniform than one may think - and harken forward to the extreme gap in barrios and cities in the modern Philippines.
You could almost say that the Phlippines ended Spanish colonization as two separate countries - the cities and the countryside, the modern and the ancient - something you touched on in your piece on BBM/Leni and the battle between the Ancient Egregore and the EDSA Egregore.
I'm currently reading Caroline Hau's Elites and Ilustrados in Philippine Culture. It is my first time to read Hau. Her writing is expansive, postmodern (she always goes meta), and has a stream of consciousness vibe. There's a section where she heavily cites Simbulan. Corpuz is also one of her references.
I'm also intrigued with the mindsets both of the friars and the locals, across the spectrum of power. The implied concepts of "race" and "ethnicity" in Pigaffeta seems to be very different to how we see them today. The prof who led the Girard course I attended points out how different Otherness was conceived in the 16th century, as seen by the marriage between conquistadors and women from Inca royalty (he has studied Mexican history), while marriage between European nobles and peasants was unthinkable. Then the post-Darwin world of the ilustrados. I visited the Ayala museum last week to visit the newly discovered Juan Luna, and watched the Juan Luna documentary. I can't help but wonder if the filmmaker was projecting his own experience of 21st century racism to Juan Luna's experience of an indio in Spain who married into a mestizo family. I don't know enough of the 1890s enough to say anything about this, but I am curious.
I suppose it was considered preferable to sailing women over to the colonies. Papadala mo pa 'yung babae, meron naman doon. Buwan pa yung biyahe, kasama pa puro lalaki. That and, well, marriages between the wealthy elite to grow the fortune is no stranger to anyone.
I don't have a lot of classroom learning in these things, so my impression of the ilustrados is a little like I see the "studied abroad then came home" or "Filipino citizenship based abroad" groups, who to the average Filipino might seem basically foreign. While the majority of us were (and a plurarity if not a majority probably still are) essentially traditional in social network and familial structure, the ilustrados were the first large group that was exposed to cosmopolitan ideas and ways of life, if their travel abroad and numerous business interests are to be believed.
I should go look for Elites and Ilustrados, it would be nice to go over that ground again.
If you're looking further into the ideas of the Anarchy of Families, you may wish to look into Dante Simbulan's Modern Principalia. He looks into who became a principalia, and why, tracing them back to colonial times. Professions and ideas included.
The reference I have for Philippine History is O.D. Corpuz's The Roots of the Filipino Nation - which I prefer to the Agoncillio textbook both for its completeness and focus on some things that one may not expect from a colonization. As an example, the failed integration of the Filipinos into the Spanish system due to colonists hopping the ship at Acapulco and never making it, reducing the check on the power of religious organizations.
One of the sections that stuck with me described the constant push and pull of early colonization - friars and Spaniards would go out and bring the pre-Filipinos into the pueblos to proselytize to them. Because there were too few Spanish to truly guard all the outlying pueblos, the people often melted away back into the countryside, where the priests would have to follow them into barrios and establish churches there. This to show that the early colonization was far less orderly and uniform than one may think - and harken forward to the extreme gap in barrios and cities in the modern Philippines.
You could almost say that the Phlippines ended Spanish colonization as two separate countries - the cities and the countryside, the modern and the ancient - something you touched on in your piece on BBM/Leni and the battle between the Ancient Egregore and the EDSA Egregore.
Thank you!
I'm currently reading Caroline Hau's Elites and Ilustrados in Philippine Culture. It is my first time to read Hau. Her writing is expansive, postmodern (she always goes meta), and has a stream of consciousness vibe. There's a section where she heavily cites Simbulan. Corpuz is also one of her references.
I'm also intrigued with the mindsets both of the friars and the locals, across the spectrum of power. The implied concepts of "race" and "ethnicity" in Pigaffeta seems to be very different to how we see them today. The prof who led the Girard course I attended points out how different Otherness was conceived in the 16th century, as seen by the marriage between conquistadors and women from Inca royalty (he has studied Mexican history), while marriage between European nobles and peasants was unthinkable. Then the post-Darwin world of the ilustrados. I visited the Ayala museum last week to visit the newly discovered Juan Luna, and watched the Juan Luna documentary. I can't help but wonder if the filmmaker was projecting his own experience of 21st century racism to Juan Luna's experience of an indio in Spain who married into a mestizo family. I don't know enough of the 1890s enough to say anything about this, but I am curious.
I suppose it was considered preferable to sailing women over to the colonies. Papadala mo pa 'yung babae, meron naman doon. Buwan pa yung biyahe, kasama pa puro lalaki. That and, well, marriages between the wealthy elite to grow the fortune is no stranger to anyone.
I don't have a lot of classroom learning in these things, so my impression of the ilustrados is a little like I see the "studied abroad then came home" or "Filipino citizenship based abroad" groups, who to the average Filipino might seem basically foreign. While the majority of us were (and a plurarity if not a majority probably still are) essentially traditional in social network and familial structure, the ilustrados were the first large group that was exposed to cosmopolitan ideas and ways of life, if their travel abroad and numerous business interests are to be believed.
I should go look for Elites and Ilustrados, it would be nice to go over that ground again.
The Philippian history project sounds very interesting, and ha, your last diagram is awesome! You must have had fun putting that together. Re: truth... if it's helpful, here's my short take on Girardian truth. https://open.substack.com/pub/fosterj/p/girardian-truth?r=yu4kf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Yes, it was super fun!