HISTORY OF STEEL IN EASTERN ASIA EXHIBITION NOW ONLINE

[MABAGANI]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[David]

Braulio, i think it is time for you to put your cards on the table. I have tried hard to understand all sides of this issue, but inspite of our PMs you haven't made this any easier or clearer for me. I do understand and respect your desire not to mention names and air dirty laundry, but it is time for innuendos to end and facts to be made straight. I and others have asked you time and again to get specific with a complete list of the mistakes apparent in the exhibition. The best you have been able to tell me is that you sent a list to Ian. Now you have apparently sent a list to Alan. I can see no reason why these corrections need to be some big secret that is passed around behind closed doors. If you are truly concerned about this supposedly false information being accepted or passed on as facts then come foward and put your money where you mouth is. If you are worried that these mistakes somehow slight the Filipino perspective then speak up. If you feel that somehow your people have not gotten a fair hearing, that the history presented is somehow skewed and distorted, then by all means, set us straight. Hopeful you will agree that this would be right ON topic, so why not share this information with the whole community?

[MABAGANI]

check your pm

[MABAGANI]

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.