Gentlemen (and any ladies out there as well
) It seems to me that we are entering into a debate which has no definitive "black or white" answer. I certainly understand Shelley's point of view here. Often enough we only have the perspective of the conquerer to go by and it is obviously a skewed one. We certainly saw that in this country (USA) for quite a long time with the Native American, though i do think it is fair to say that the pendulum has swung back a bit in this regard. We really do not see the Hollywood impression of the savage Indians that we once saw in the old cowboy & indian movies because we have become a too saavy to except that as realistic. In fact we are in danger of seeing that pendulum swing too far in the other direction. The life of the Indian was not a peaceful and idyllic eden either, as some more modern movements would lead us to believe. There is a modern tendency to over romanticize the life of the "noble savage". People are people. There are good and bad, kind and cruel, in every culture.
The Philippines is, unfortunately, a part of history that is not so well remembered by the American people. It was a far and distant war that didn't really effect life here all that much and was easy to sweep under the rug, so to speak. American are easily apathetic about wars that don't effect the quality of their personal lives. I don't think the average American has any real understanding of the Filipino or Moro cultures or what differences there are between them...or for that matter, why we fought a war with the Moro or even THAT we had such a war. In such a climate the stories put forth by the American military and western historians is bound to be skewed, but accepted. From my perspective the Moros from that time were no doubt freedom fighters and their side of the story needs telling. Who better to tell it than the native Filipino or Moro.
If we speak with present day Moros we are bound to find exaggeration and legend in their stories too, but i am not sure that makes those stories any less "true" than the tales of western historians that were written from the perspective of the conquering forces. It is just a
different perspective. I am afraid that we will never find definitive and absolute truths here. That is what makes this debate moot. We will only find different perspectives, each with their own
relative truths. Each has a right to be spoken. Each should be examined with a critical eye and we will each come to our own personal conclusions based on the information presented.
So to me it is rediculous to put any more credence in one perspective over another. The "truth" most probably lies somewhere in between. I am not sure that we as a spieces are actually capable of looking at ourselves and our actions from a completely objective position. All history is therefore somewhat skewed. Everyone's histories need to have a place in the history books.
Now, as for weapons in particular, since that should utlimately be the focus of any discussion on these forums, i would imagine that the reports on the usage of the ethnographic weaponry of a particular culture from the perspective of a conquering force (i.e. a U.S. Army report on Moro weapons) would likely be very accurate even if the moral question of a particular massacre might not be. It might, in fact, be more accurate than a modern day account from a Moro who never actually welded a kris or a barong in battle. But at the same time that Moro might be able to tell me more about some esorteric point about the kris that the battlefield report from 1902 would probably have overlooked. So in the study of this weapon i would probably find valuable information from both accounts. If i wanted to know technical information about how this blade functioned in battle the U.S. Marine's account could be more accurate. But if i wanted info on the talismanic side....