Barung(s) for you

[Spunjer]

so was arnis/escrima developed by the visayans as a form of self defense against the moros then?

[MABAGANI]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

so was arnis/escrima developed by the visayans as a form of self defense against the moros then?

I don't buy that it was completely Visayan, arnis/escrima after all is just a name for arts related to the PI, we can't exclude Luzon (didn't they fight too? why left out for some reasons?) and the southern islands or the old timers here and abroad in the history of the FMA, a complicated but understandable matter.
We know that when the Spanish arrived in PI written material/history was burned and martial arts were banned, but that would not have stopped oral tradition or physical teachings in regards to forms of art, dance and martial.
Mindanao and Sulu had kept their martial arts alive which can be found in their written and evidentally, their oral/physical traditions, if you care to delve deeper you can find early pre-Islamic traces of the martial arts in recorded epics. This would point towards martial arts existing prior to the whole Mindanao/Sulu and Visayan/Luzon separation/conflict, all the islands were on the verge of Islamic conversion at the time of Spanish arrival.
The answer depends on what perspective you want to take and how open your interpretation of history would be.

[LabanTayo]

does the truth have to be published before it is accepted as the truth?
if my lolo (grandfather) told me that when he was in WWII as a guerilla and told me that the sword they used was called 'itak', then should i discount that from being the truth, since its not published.
we are here to discover our history by comparing pics and notes. but does verbal information not count? the only time i have seen the Panay sword, Binangon, refered to as such, is one of Kris Cutlery's old catalogues. does that count as published? does that make it the truth? or does the fact that everyone in Panay call their farm sword a Binangon, count as truth?
we have to account that most of the real filipino history is verbal, not written by the spanish or americans. there's a lot of published items that are incorrect in their facts.

a quote passed on to me by BSMstar, says it all:
"history is written by the winner"

is the winner always right?

[Federico]

Ok, it seems like I have opened pandora's box, my point has long since been lost.

I'll try to re-iterate. Citation does not mean only books. In history or anthropology circles, oral history, and living informants are highly valued. Oral history definitely is as valid as any written reference. I have never argued against oral history. I have repeated time and time again that I value oral history, and wish I could meet more people who are willing to share their knowledge.

However, if you dont credit a source, then all I am left to understand that is that the information is coming from your opinion. The credit does not have to be overly formal. But simply something as in the Maguindanao story of X, or my lolo told me, or even an elder told me gives us a point of reference. However, saying oh this is that, or other vague statements. Well its contextless.

Finally, while I am just as eager for tidbits of information where I can find it, I cannot simply accept things on faith. Sometimes errors occur. Stone's is such an example. Do we not cross-reference and try to check the validity of a source? Cross-referencing is always good, and part of the reason why I seek to learn still. If I could rest with one reference, then my journey would be over. But I am always, seeking to know why. If a catalog calls an item X, why? If a book says X, why? I dont hope to have all the answers, but would like to know why.

[Rick]

LabanTayo wrote :

"a quote passed on to me by BSMstar, says it all:
"history is written by the winner"

is the winner always right? "

Might makes 'right' .

In the process the history of the vanquished often gets destroyed .

[MABAGANI]

Originally Posted by Federico

Ok, it seems like I have opened pandora's box, my point has long since been lost.

I'll try to re-iterate. Citation does not mean only books. In history or anthropology circles, oral history, and living informants are highly valued. Oral history definitely is as valid as any written reference. I have never argued against oral history. I have repeated time and time again that I value oral history, and wish I could meet more people who are willing to share their knowledge.

However, if you dont credit a source, then all I am left to understand that is that the information is coming from your opinion. The credit does not have to be overly formal. But simply something as in the Maguindanao story of X, or my lolo told me, or even an elder told me gives us a point of reference. However, saying oh this is that, or other vague statements. Well its contextless.

Finally, while I am just as eager for tidbits of information where I can find it, I cannot simply accept things on faith. Sometimes errors occur. Stone's is such an example. Do we not cross-reference and try to check the validity of a source? Cross-referencing is always good, and part of the reason why I seek to learn still. If I could rest with one reference, then my journey would be over. But I am always, seeking to know why. If a catalog calls an item X, why? If a book says X, why? I dont hope to have all the answers, but would like to know why.

So what's the point if 99% of forumites do not cite and base comments on opinion. We're not likely to set rules and guidelines regarding every statement. The "why" depending on the subject can also fall into opinion or educated guess after gathering info. If I'm being singled out for my vagueness, my private messaging is open for further explanations, I don't write in public without being able to back my comments. Consequently, often the open forum deals with gray areas, estimates without actual knowledge, until concrete or reliable evidence can be found, in this context wouldn't we individually be considered for credit as a source, if our train of thought, theories and comments make sense...our words are being recorded in the internet.

[tom hyle]

Now, first off, I currently have the feeling of a long spike thru my left eye (no blood; migraine) scraping against the inside of the top of my skull, and am on enough drugs to, nothing presumptuous, drop most men, so-as to exist with such pain and so many weapons and not do something with the one to end the other. So I may not be at my most logical and exhaustive; there's too much said by too many, so instead of picking apart and responding I'll try to just make my own li'l statement.
Logic is fine. It's very useful. Academic studies with citations and "proper"* forms are fine, and very useful. BUT, they are not the only fine and useful things. They are ways, paradigms of thinking and doing. They are not the only paradigms, and their common refusal to interact respectfully with other paradigms is frustrating at best, and basically takes this form: "what you have just said is not in a form we (admit it or not "science" is an organized religion; a "we") understand or from a source we respect, and therefore it has (emphasis mine) NO validity," and I believe this is not sensible, not helpful, discouraging and disrespectful to those who think in a different manner than you do, culturally divisive, and detrimental to a search for truth, even the banal ordinary truth of factuality.
I've repeatedly had the conversation with people where they ask me to cite sources, and since I have no such list running through my mind for proving things to people with, I'm often forced to say "I can't" Repeatedly I encounter the reply that then I shouldn't say a thing as I don't stnd ready to prove or defend it. That it's my responsibility to prove it. That's nonsense. It's my responsibility to speak the truth. It may be my responsibility to try to get certain knowledge (lore as well as personal experiece) "out" to such of the people as will listen, but it is your responsibility to determine whether to believe it. The world is full (too too full....) of people believing and engaging in all manner of foolishness. It is not my place to try to stop them; to prove my way to them; matter of fact I've worn myself out trying to get through to humans, to affect their beliefs, and I regret pretty near every moment I ever wasted on that.
For me often, too, it's a matter of not only don't I know where I read or heard this or that, but I found it, and it seems like you could, too, probably with no more effort than it would take me to find it again. I feel like people are giving me homework assignments or something, at such times. I'm affraid, with no disrespect intended, that I by and large have better things to do with my life than prove to humans how smart I think I am. I tell the truth; do with it what you will, I guess.
Now all this may seem well and good, it may seem arrogant and dismissive, it may seem like pointless whining (it seems that's how some people take it; shrug), and either way it may still seem illogical and not sensible to some, but in a way that's the very point, and to those who can't see the value in listening to or at least allowing, a way of thought they don't understand, I give this challenge: I make no claims to special brilliance (just to difference, which isn't so much a claim as an inescapable reality) go back in your memories, or in the archives, and see how often my uncited, folk-lore, old-man-talk, "I don't know...."ends up getting shown right or valid, or at least pointing in a useful direction. Sometimes wrong? Sometimes misinterpretted? Sure. But useless? Meaningless? Far from it! To be excluded? I don't mean to be offensive, but I think that's foolish. The folly of logic. Logic is how your mind works. It is not reality. Don't make a god of your own human mind.

*whenever the word "proper" comes out of you, you should ask yourself real, real hard whether that's not actually an expression of bigotted tribal superiorist assumptions; it almost always is. I entertain comical visions of entering a snooty restaurant with a "proper dress" sign wearing sarong and k(e)ris, or face-paint and phallicrypt........................the clothing of my own Iroquois and Cherokee ancestors is just too similar to European clothing to make a really funny mind-cartoon; I need a more Southern element to really push it over the edge then it really makes me laugh

[tom hyle]

If fighting garabs were used in pairs, wouldn't there be an equal or near to it number of left and right handed ones? May the reference more likely be to a sword-and-dagger style? Now I'll be the one to ask for sources or explanations. What are you talking about garab, pulahan,...? What are these terms? Where are they from? They've been kicking around here a bit, and I was hoping they'd come clearer, but they haven't. Should I go back to calling them talibons until there's something more systematic or agreed upon? Am I missing a source everyone else has access to? I never know; life always seems like that to me, anyway....
There's an elusive quest for the origins of the paired swords fighting concept/style, which marches on....