Barong Classification

tom hyle · 15th April 2005, 12:21 PM

Hi, how are you? There used to be writing here, and the computer won't believe me if I just TELL it there still is

Ian · 15th April 2005, 03:04 PM

Federico and Tom:

I hear what you are both saying. My point was not to ignore or dismiss any particular person's views, quite the opposite. I was trying to encourage a coming together and synthesis of ideas. Each one of us has but a small fragment of the truth, and one way this Forum helps me is by allowing us to bring those fragments together.

Sometimes our own strongly held beliefs get in the way of dialogue and objectivity -- I'm guilty of doing that too.

But I think this Forum offers a great opportunity to talk through differences of opinion in a civil manner, and in the process perhaps enlighten not just ourselves but everyone. I would again encourage all interested parties to take some of the ideas expressed here and work through differences of opinion and interpretation so that the rest of us can be better informed.

Ian.

tom hyle · 16th April 2005, 12:28 AM

That's absolutely true; this forum always strives toward fairness and peace, and that's why 'plaints for them can be heard and responded to here.

Federico · 17th April 2005, 05:09 AM

Ian

I would just like to clarify (seems like I need to do this alot), earlier post was not directed at you, I just know in the past in debates with others the sentiment has been voiced by some forum members(not just the deafening silence that occurs so often on the net). Anyways, I would love to see what evidence there is to draw this distinction between Samal and Tausug. The physical difference between the two styles is self-evident, and is noted in Bob Cato's book. However, why should we call one style Samal and the other Tausug, and not just a variation within a singular cultural theme. The only place I can think of, is one picture in Kriegers plates that says one barong is Samal, but then it doesnt say the other is Tausug (it actually says Mindanao) which then leads to the question how accurate is that distinction. Certainly, Bob's book does not make the distinction, so what are the merits of the argument? Zel never elaborated earlier, and hasnt commented in this thread either, and Spunjer said Zel's post and Bob's book are the only two references for this typology.

15th April 2005, 12:21 PM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Hi, how are you? There used to be writing here, and the computer won't believe me if I just TELL it there still is Last edited by tom hyle; 16th April 2005 at 12:37 AM. Reason: moderator complaint

15th April 2005, 03:04 PM	#2
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,362	Federico and Tom: I hear what you are both saying. My point was not to ignore or dismiss any particular person's views, quite the opposite. I was trying to encourage a coming together and synthesis of ideas. Each one of us has but a small fragment of the truth, and one way this Forum helps me is by allowing us to bring those fragments together. Sometimes our own strongly held beliefs get in the way of dialogue and objectivity -- I'm guilty of doing that too. But I think this Forum offers a great opportunity to talk through differences of opinion in a civil manner, and in the process perhaps enlighten not just ourselves but everyone. I would again encourage all interested parties to take some of the ideas expressed here and work through differences of opinion and interpretation so that the rest of us can be better informed. Ian.

16th April 2005, 12:28 AM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	That's absolutely true; this forum always strives toward fairness and peace, and that's why 'plaints for them can be heard and responded to here.

17th April 2005, 05:09 AM	#4
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	Ian I would just like to clarify (seems like I need to do this alot), earlier post was not directed at you, I just know in the past in debates with others the sentiment has been voiced by some forum members(not just the deafening silence that occurs so often on the net). Anyways, I would love to see what evidence there is to draw this distinction between Samal and Tausug. The physical difference between the two styles is self-evident, and is noted in Bob Cato's book. However, why should we call one style Samal and the other Tausug, and not just a variation within a singular cultural theme. The only place I can think of, is one picture in Kriegers plates that says one barong is Samal, but then it doesnt say the other is Tausug (it actually says Mindanao) which then leads to the question how accurate is that distinction. Certainly, Bob's book does not make the distinction, so what are the merits of the argument? Zel never elaborated earlier, and hasnt commented in this thread either, and Spunjer said Zel's post and Bob's book are the only two references for this typology.