I have stayed out of this discussion until now, mostly because I have very little knowledge of Philippine history, culture, society or weaponry.
I have no base of knowledge, so what can I contribute?
However, as this discussion has developed it has moved from the core issues of disagreement in respect of some perceptions of history, and other suggested inaccuracies, to the broader questions of how people at this point in time should view, or are able to view , events and opinions that existed in a time past.
It has often been said that "winners write the history books".
If this is so, and I personally believe that it is, we can expect to see varying opinions in respect of any historical event. To identify the real, accurate truth of any matter could in some cases be impossible at any later date. In the writing of any new work the important thing should be that the matters presented as fact be adequately referenced. Commentary on an exhibition of edged weaponry is hardly in the same category as a text book produced for use by Phd candidates. I would suggest that if the percieved inaccuracies in the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition are able to referenced to any accepted authority, then that should be adequate for the purpose for which this exhibition commentary was produced.
Barry has very accurately identified the changing nature of the cultural stream.
That which held true for one's grandfather does not necessarily hold true for oneself.
The passing of time changes cultural perceptions, and societal values, and even deeply rooted values can and do undergo change over a period of time.
Just as values change, so do beliefs.
Verbal histories may hold the essence of truth, but it is certain that that essence of truth will be buried and distorted by the need for the human respository of that verbal tradition to reinforce the values and self image of the society of which he is a part.This is not to say that a verbal tradition has no value, it does have a high value. But that value reflects the way in which a culture and society sees itself, rather than the truth of the events recounted in the verbal history or tradition.
A parrallel can be drawn with the babads of the Javanese courts, which do contain the essence of truth, but are presented in a way and a form calculated to reflect truths to cast a positive light on the ruler.
Perhaps we could look at the events which have taken place in our world over the last few years.
How many of us believe that the "facts" that have been presented to us in respect of a number of major events are accurate representations of what really took place?
I feel that in assessing the excellence or otherwise of the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition we should adopt a flexible attitude rather than an intransigent one. I suggest that it may be wise to view this commentary in the context of its presentation, and to realise that any perception of historical events can vary, dependent upon a multitude of factors.
As a person with no stake in the debate surrounding this exhibition, who has only a passing interest in what was presented in the exhibition, and after following the contributions to this debate in this and other forums, I feel compelled to comment that I have been left with an overall feeling of negativity in respect of the viciously critical comments that have been levelled at both the exhibition and those people who devoted their time and their property to trying to ensure its success.
In my opinion this hypercritical attitude does not reflect honour upon those who engage in it, nor does it it reflect honour upon the society and culture represented in the exhibition. If we can assume that the overall objective of the exhibition, and those who supported it , was to promote an element of Philippine culture, then we can only deduce that the viciousness of the attacks upon the exhibition and the work of those who supported it has been calculated to detract from those efforts to present a cultural element in a favourable light.
We do not sell an idea by violent and vicious disagreement with those who promote that idea in a way that varies slightly from what we ouselves believe, rather, we take what those others present and we build on it.
|