HISTORY OF STEEL IN EASTERN ASIA EXHIBITION NOW ONLINE

MABAGANI · 3rd January 2007, 06:19 PM

Okay, I agree that we disagree about some things. lolz
Btw the warrior mythology has its place and can be applied in modern life, they are lessons not always to be taken literally, at least in a civilized society(?). We can't afford to leave people behind any longer, uneducated in the age of information if our common goal is peace. Difficult enough as it is to reconcile eachs own history, so why screw with another nations' past? We really need a new archetype for the one human race. Read works by Joseph Cambell. Save some trees, send laptops with free internet access not bombs...

A. G. Maisey · 3rd January 2007, 09:34 PM

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.

A. G. Maisey · 3rd January 2007, 09:54 PM

Taking of heads.

During the 1990's the Indonesian government , in accordance with their policy of "transmigration" transported a number---a large number---of settlers from Madura to Kalimantan, granted land to them , and gave them the essentials to commence development of farms on that land.

Only problem was that the the land that the Indonesian government considered to be theirs to give, was considered by the Dyak people as their tribal land. They felt that their land was being stolen from them. Not only that, but they felt that their culture was being corrupted by outsiders.

It would be fair to say that these Dyak people became just a little upset. Minor disagreements and confrontations eventually developed into a little war. The Indonesian army appeared to be content to stand back and let events take their course.

During this time the Indonesian media published reports of heads being taken by Dyak people. This may or may not be true, but it was reported, and many people believed it.

During the late 1960's and through to about 1980 I knew several people in Solo who worked for timber getting companies in Kalimantan. They were very cautious of Dyak people, and would not ever go into forest country unaccompanied. They told stories of fellow workers being killed and of heads being taken. Might have been just good stories, might not have been, but I did form the impression that they were genuinely frightened of the Dyak people.

ariel · 3rd January 2007, 11:32 PM

It is often said that the history is written by the victors. True, but not quite: history is written by both sides. And each side presents the facts to his own advantage.
Take, for example, the fateful meeting between Sivaji and Afzal Khan.
Lord Egerton of Tatton ( impartial , most likely):
Sivaji put chain armor, and concealed a bichwa in his right sleeve and bagh-nakh in his left hand. Having approached Afzal Khan, he "... in the midst of a customary embrace, struck the waghnakh into the bowels of Afzal Khan ". The latter exclaimed "treachery and murder", but Sivaji instantly followed up the blow with his dagger. The Khan tried to cut Sivaji with his sword, but failed due to the armor. "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", p. 27.
E. Jaiwant Paul's version:
"As they embraced, Afzal Khan treacherously attempted to thrust a dagger in the Shivaji's chest, who was saved by his hidden armour. Shivaji, in turn, ripped out Afzal Khan's belly with the baghnakh. In the ensuing confusion,Shivaji's troops, lying in ambush massacred the Bijapur forces and enjoyed spectacular victory" " Arms and Armour. Traditional weapons of India", p.100
I could not find the Afzal's side description, but suspect it was closer to the Eggerton's one.
Here we have two very conflicting versions, depicting one side as noble and another as treacherous, depending on who is "writing the history".
Depending on who is the author, the Turkish practice of "devshirme" was described as either a cruel kidnapping of the children from the Balkans and making them "Sultan's slaves" or a noble and generous attempt to provide the kids with education and advance their careers in the Ottoman empire.
The Russian rendition of the Battle of Kalka always includes the mention of the Tatar "Horde" with their numerical superiority against a small band of heroic Slavs. In fact, there were ~ 25,000 Mongols and allies versus ~ 85,000-125,000 Russians.
The Iranians still recount the story of Aryobarzan who, with his small force, stopped the entire army of Alexander and was betrayed by a shepherd who showed the Greeks a secret passage across the mountain. This is a mirror image of the story of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans that occured ~ 150 years earlier and they just reversed the history.
And the list may continue on and on....
History relies on personal and state accounts, but those are heavily contaminated by chauvinism, sycophantic paeans, inferiority complexes and just plain propaganda. The task of historians is a complicated one and it gets harder and harder with the passage of time... It is tremendously important to get to the bottom of things and present the real story. Otherwise, we become victims of historical fables and our worldview becomes poisoned.
As they say, everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts.

MABAGANI · 3rd January 2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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.

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.

We covered this already, there are references to exact dates but for some reason the accepted facts (on both sides) were not proofread and written incorrectly and artifacts were mislabeled within the exhibit. In an attempt to point out inaccuracies the promoter who espouses superior values went on a personal attack rather than taking them into consideration. Most members probably missed that part in the editing. Even contributors would like to fix the errors. Sincerity is in question because nothing has been done to at least correct the online presentation. I'll take personal blame for bringing this whole thread debacle to attention but why should anyone stand by when there are clearly errors and when members of this forum were mistreated in the process of the exhibit.

A. G. Maisey · 3rd January 2007, 11:38 PM

Mabagani, I have the utmost respect for your opinion in this matter, and if in your opinion the matters that I have addressed had been previously dealt with and resolved, I respect that opinion.

However, in my opinion these matters had not been satisfactorily addressed; had I considered that all elements involved in this discussion had been adequately addressed and dealt with, I would not have spent time in writing my post.

In essence, my post is a plea for adopting a realistic view of the world, history, and the exhibition which is the subject of this debate.

An objective assessment of the criticism levelled at this exhibition and those who contributed to it will reveal that to date this critical commentary has been something other than realistic.

In respect of the mislabelling of artifacts, would it possible to provide comparative data setting out the inaccuracies in labelling, and what that labelling should correctly be? Or does this already exist somewhere else, and I am not aware of it?

MABAGANI · 4th January 2007, 12:23 AM

A. G. Maisey, I have forwarded the blatant mistakes which contributors would like corrected, they can easily be researched and crossed referenced. As mentioned, all authors and contributors agreed about errors. As for the fallout due to the exhibit, damage was done and I doubt resolution.
PM me

Rick · 4th January 2007, 01:47 AM

Hi Braulio,
We have had a cordial relationship throughout your tenure as Member here.
I sincerely hope that it continues .

I think that it is time that we talk of the Elephant that is standing in the room and a few other things.

You are aware that a member crucial to this project went missing for almost a month during the closing weeks just before the deadline approached; yes?

I personally called this member by telephone and left a message requesting that he respond, even call me collect as did others involved in the project.

There was no answer via phone or email to me and none that I am aware of to any of us who were involved in this project.

This member's assignment was to write the accompanying text for the exhibit; he did not refuse the task. The deadline came and went with no word from our contributor despite repeated attempts at contact.

The rest of the team was forced to pick up the ball and finish that which AFAIK was left undone; at this point we had about a week IIRC to get the project to completion.

Mabagani, please let's be realistic; a State Art Museum is not going to cancel a project because of the objections of former potential contributors, yourself included.

To withdraw from cooperation in the face of an inevitable outcome which you could have affected in a positive way is IMO a failure; you could have tried to help because even if it was not as you wanted it to be it was going to happen regardless of whether you opposed it or not my friend.

I am deeply sorry if things did not turn out as you wished; yet you always had the option of helping us or not.

Unless I am mistaken you chose not to do so.

Rick

A. G. Maisey · 4th January 2007, 01:59 AM

Thank you Mabagani for your undertaking to forward material to me that will give me more insight to this matter.

I look forward to recieving it.

MABAGANI · 4th January 2007, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Mabagani, please let's be realistic; a State Art Museum is not going to cancel a project because of the objections of former potential contributors, yourself included.

To withdraw from cooperation in the face of an inevitable outcome which you could have affected in a positive way is IMO a failure; you could have tried to help because even if it was not as you wanted it to be it was going to happen regardless of whether you opposed it or not my friend.

I am deeply sorry if things did not turn out as you wished; yet you always had the option of helping us or not.

Unless I am mistaken you chose not to do so.

Rick

Rick, I had my reasons for not trying the second attempt, the original team was prepared and ready, everything was lined up descriptions, text, article, etc. way before the deadline. I was expecting my child as I mentioned and I didn't want to go through a whole revamp and wait again not knowing if the museum was serious, again. They did cancel the first attempt, why not the second? The personal attack on the team coordinator swayed the decision not to participate in the process. In essence from there, I was left out of the loop from the beginning. I still don't know why they did not leave the Philippines out when other nations did not go through with their projects, and knowing the Philippines was already at a disadvantage of starting over with no article. Also sounded like the team had to expand the original contributions to fill space?

No one contacted me when the team got in trouble, I could have easily proofread the text and ironed out the mistakes without drastic changes to the work. I thought with the silence everything was under control. I asked everyone what went wrong after I finally read text and got bashed by the assembler for commenting about the online article. Hearing all the complaints and abuses from the contributors were not right either.

Unfortunate turn of events, but in hindsight I'm not sure if the mishap was foreseeable. Had I known what was going on I may or may not have been able to warn or help the team.
I regret bearing witness to the fallout and complaints that went on behind the scenes. And I again would have preferred this thread locked, we could have tried to fix the mistakes without airing comments on and way off topic.

3rd January 2007, 11:32 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	It is often said that the history is written by the victors. True, but not quite: history is written by both sides. And each side presents the facts to his own advantage. Take, for example, the fateful meeting between Sivaji and Afzal Khan. Lord Egerton of Tatton ( impartial , most likely): Sivaji put chain armor, and concealed a bichwa in his right sleeve and bagh-nakh in his left hand. Having approached Afzal Khan, he "... in the midst of a customary embrace, struck the waghnakh into the bowels of Afzal Khan ". The latter exclaimed "treachery and murder", but Sivaji instantly followed up the blow with his dagger. The Khan tried to cut Sivaji with his sword, but failed due to the armor. "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", p. 27. E. Jaiwant Paul's version: "As they embraced, Afzal Khan treacherously attempted to thrust a dagger in the Shivaji's chest, who was saved by his hidden armour. Shivaji, in turn, ripped out Afzal Khan's belly with the baghnakh. In the ensuing confusion,Shivaji's troops, lying in ambush massacred the Bijapur forces and enjoyed spectacular victory" " Arms and Armour. Traditional weapons of India", p.100 I could not find the Afzal's side description, but suspect it was closer to the Eggerton's one. Here we have two very conflicting versions, depicting one side as noble and another as treacherous, depending on who is "writing the history". Depending on who is the author, the Turkish practice of "devshirme" was described as either a cruel kidnapping of the children from the Balkans and making them "Sultan's slaves" or a noble and generous attempt to provide the kids with education and advance their careers in the Ottoman empire. The Russian rendition of the Battle of Kalka always includes the mention of the Tatar "Horde" with their numerical superiority against a small band of heroic Slavs. In fact, there were ~ 25,000 Mongols and allies versus ~ 85,000-125,000 Russians. The Iranians still recount the story of Aryobarzan who, with his small force, stopped the entire army of Alexander and was betrayed by a shepherd who showed the Greeks a secret passage across the mountain. This is a mirror image of the story of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans that occured ~ 150 years earlier and they just reversed the history. And the list may continue on and on.... History relies on personal and state accounts, but those are heavily contaminated by chauvinism, sycophantic paeans, inferiority complexes and just plain propaganda. The task of historians is a complicated one and it gets harder and harder with the passage of time... It is tremendously important to get to the bottom of things and present the real story. Otherwise, we become victims of historical fables and our worldview becomes poisoned. As they say, everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts. Last edited by ariel; 4th January 2007 at 06:08 AM.

3rd January 2007, 06:19 PM	#1
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	Okay, I agree that we disagree about some things. lolz Btw the warrior mythology has its place and can be applied in modern life, they are lessons not always to be taken literally, at least in a civilized society(?). We can't afford to leave people behind any longer, uneducated in the age of information if our common goal is peace. Difficult enough as it is to reconcile eachs own history, so why screw with another nations' past? We really need a new archetype for the one human race. Read works by Joseph Cambell. Save some trees, send laptops with free internet access not bombs...

3rd January 2007, 09:34 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	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.

3rd January 2007, 09:54 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Taking of heads. During the 1990's the Indonesian government , in accordance with their policy of "transmigration" transported a number---a large number---of settlers from Madura to Kalimantan, granted land to them , and gave them the essentials to commence development of farms on that land. Only problem was that the the land that the Indonesian government considered to be theirs to give, was considered by the Dyak people as their tribal land. They felt that their land was being stolen from them. Not only that, but they felt that their culture was being corrupted by outsiders. It would be fair to say that these Dyak people became just a little upset. Minor disagreements and confrontations eventually developed into a little war. The Indonesian army appeared to be content to stand back and let events take their course. During this time the Indonesian media published reports of heads being taken by Dyak people. This may or may not be true, but it was reported, and many people believed it. During the late 1960's and through to about 1980 I knew several people in Solo who worked for timber getting companies in Kalimantan. They were very cautious of Dyak people, and would not ever go into forest country unaccompanied. They told stories of fellow workers being killed and of heads being taken. Might have been just good stories, might not have been, but I did form the impression that they were genuinely frightened of the Dyak people.

3rd January 2007, 11:38 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Mabagani, I have the utmost respect for your opinion in this matter, and if in your opinion the matters that I have addressed had been previously dealt with and resolved, I respect that opinion. However, in my opinion these matters had not been satisfactorily addressed; had I considered that all elements involved in this discussion had been adequately addressed and dealt with, I would not have spent time in writing my post. In essence, my post is a plea for adopting a realistic view of the world, history, and the exhibition which is the subject of this debate. An objective assessment of the criticism levelled at this exhibition and those who contributed to it will reveal that to date this critical commentary has been something other than realistic. In respect of the mislabelling of artifacts, would it possible to provide comparative data setting out the inaccuracies in labelling, and what that labelling should correctly be? Or does this already exist somewhere else, and I am not aware of it?

4th January 2007, 12:23 AM	#7
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	A. G. Maisey, I have forwarded the blatant mistakes which contributors would like corrected, they can easily be researched and crossed referenced. As mentioned, all authors and contributors agreed about errors. As for the fallout due to the exhibit, damage was done and I doubt resolution. PM me

4th January 2007, 01:47 AM	#8
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	Hi Braulio, We have had a cordial relationship throughout your tenure as Member here. I sincerely hope that it continues . I think that it is time that we talk of the Elephant that is standing in the room and a few other things. You are aware that a member crucial to this project went missing for almost a month during the closing weeks just before the deadline approached; yes? I personally called this member by telephone and left a message requesting that he respond, even call me collect as did others involved in the project. There was no answer via phone or email to me and none that I am aware of to any of us who were involved in this project. This member's assignment was to write the accompanying text for the exhibit; he did not refuse the task. The deadline came and went with no word from our contributor despite repeated attempts at contact. The rest of the team was forced to pick up the ball and finish that which AFAIK was left undone; at this point we had about a week IIRC to get the project to completion. Mabagani, please let's be realistic; a State Art Museum is not going to cancel a project because of the objections of former potential contributors, yourself included. To withdraw from cooperation in the face of an inevitable outcome which you could have affected in a positive way is IMO a failure; you could have tried to help because even if it was not as you wanted it to be it was going to happen regardless of whether you opposed it or not my friend. I am deeply sorry if things did not turn out as you wished; yet you always had the option of helping us or not. Unless I am mistaken you chose not to do so. Rick

4th January 2007, 01:59 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thank you Mabagani for your undertaking to forward material to me that will give me more insight to this matter. I look forward to recieving it.