Re. Clements' article:
The following link has a quotation from a section of Mark Wiley's first book, Filipino Martial Arts: [sic.
Filipino Martial Culture]
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/~loki/Kali/escrima.html
The only passage in this section that makes a claim that Filipino martial arts are superior to western martial arts is the following:
"When the Spaniards traveled to the island of Luzon in 1570, they found it inhabited by Filipino, Chinese and Indonesian cross-cultures, and upon their arrival they were confronted by Kalistas (Kali warriors) whose fighting method far exceeded theirs."
But this passage makes no claims about sword arts per se, and is open to interpretation. For example, are "Kalistas" a warrior caste with superior training to the average Filipino warrior; what was the influence of Chinese and Indonesian cultures upon the martial arts of the Filipinos; what fighting method are we talking about here? Wiley goes on to say in the next sentence that
"...the Spaniards, using firearms defeated the inhabitants of Luzon."
This is the essence of what has been previously posted on a couple of threads: The Spanish were able to conquer large portions of the Philippines, due to a combination of several cultural, political, and military factors, not the least being (in the third case) the technological superiority of their firepower, transportation, armor, and engineering.
Earlier in the section, Wiley states that:
"...as he and 49 Spanish conquistadors disembarked from their ships, they were confronted by 1,050 islanders, led by Raja Lapu Lapu, armed with iron-tipped fire-hardened bamboo lances and pointed fire-dried wooden stakes. Greatly outnumbered, Magellan was killed by the spears and arrows of Lapu Lapu's men."
Again, I don't see much here in the way of claims that Filipino martial arts are superior to western martial arts. As has been pointed out before on other threads, Magellen and his men, wading in knee-high water, outnumbered 20-1, and without the benefit of artillery, were attacked with arrows and lances. While this may be a textbook case of how to win a battle against a technologically superior foe, it hardly suggests that Filipino martial arts are inherently superior.
Wiley makes some claims in this section that are debatable, but is the first to admit that research in the area of Filipino martial arts is a chancy enterprise, at best. For example, the first paragraph reads:
"The recording and documentation of history is an arduous and often difficult undertaking. While reading about history we frequently believe the point of view of the author; however, this is often incomplete and inaccurate. In particular, when tracing the origin of an art of war, such as Eskrima, it is often difficult to string together the bits and pieces of fragmented information into chronological order. Also, since the exact origin of the art was never documented by those who were directly responsible for its founding, much is left to speculation and the cross-referencing of pertinent information to historical events in the surrounding geographical region."
Much has been said about Wiley and I'm often surprised at the vehemence that his articles and books provoke. The most often criticisms are that he is (1) sometimes inaccurate and (2) accepts what people tells him is true.
With respect to (1) above: Given the above paragraph as well as other factors it is not surprising that he misses the mark some of the time. For example, in "Filipino Martial Culture" he implies that the conversion on the part of the U.S. army to the 1911 45 sidearm was as a result of Moro juramentado attacks. Hey, I used to believe that was true as well (it's a great story).
In addition, I believe that part of the criticism directed at Wiley stem from possilble inaccuracies (in "Filipino Martial Arts" and elsewhere) about who is and who is not certified to teach Serrada Escrima, as well as resentment on the part of some for his argument that there never was a "mother art" of Kali upon which the later arts of eskrima and arnis are based. (Wiley's argument appears in his next book "Filipino Martial Culture.")
These appear to be politically motivated debates to some extent and have little to do with the influence of Spanish swordsmanship on Filipino martial arts. However, Clements sets the tone for the rest of his essay when he states that Wiley's first book "recieved mixed reviews" among the Filipino martial arts readership. While it is certain is that some Filipino martial artists had strong disagreements with what Wiley wrote, Clements' doesn't provide a context for his statement and somehow implies that everything that Wiley says is suspect or naive. Perhaps it is - I haven't read "Filipino Martial Arts" except for the exerpt from which I quote above.
With respect to (2), I agree that Wiley tends to print what people tell him. I can think of at least one chapter in "Filipino Fighting Arts" for example, in which there is a fair degree of fiction mixed in with the facts. There are three considerations that temper my irritation at Wiley with respect to this issue:
(a) Wiley is the first to admit that scholarship in the area of Filipino martial arts is fraught with the possibility of error due to the fact that, until quite recently, no one wrote anything down. This means that the anthropologist or historian of Filipino martial arts tradition must rely on oral history for many of his facts and conclusions. With respect to oral history, Wiley writes that:
"Although oral traditions do suffice in the absence or paucity of written documentation, they often lead to the formation of legends. Regrettably, this oral dissemination of knowledge has resulted in a number of authors unknowingly perpetrating false information, as these stories are often taken at face value." ("Filipino Martial Culture", pp. 21-2).
Perhaps it is true that Wiley is as much a victim in this regard as the authors whom he criticizes.
(b) Although Wiley tends to print what people tell him, to what extent is he required to check and double-check everything he is told? If you or I, for example, wanted to write a book about a Filipino martial arts tradition, we would go to the leaders and exponents of that tradition and ask for interviews, demonstrations, etc. We'd then wade through the information provided and attempt to verify as much as possible - but (and this is an important "but") there would have to be a sufficient level of trust between us and the leaders and exponents to have justified the research in the first place. All Wiley has said for the most part is, "So-and-so told me that..." If Wiley had said, "So-and-so lied to me about...," he would never be able to talk to anyone again.
In this regard, it is interesting to compare the chapters about Kuntaw Lima-Lima and Pananandata Marinas in Filipino Martial Culture. Wiley is able to let both proponents have their say without forcing his own conclusions about their disagreement. I should add that Wileys chapter on San Miguel Eskrima in Filipino Fighting Arts is well researched and very accurate. (Here is the source of any possible bias I have towards Wiley, whom Ive never met, for those who are interested.)
Finally, Wileys additional remarks about oral traditions are interesting with respect to (b) above:
(O)ral historiography is considered a legitimate method of inquiry in researching various aspects of Filipino culture today. Demetrios position on this is well taken: oral tradition is concerned not with authorship or fact
Most of the time what is handed down as tradition has no author, nor can it be established as fact always. Yet the fact that a story, a proverb, a myth is handed down either orally or in writing, whether in its entirety or in part, argues for its value and importance for both the tradition bearers and receivers. (Filipino Martial Culture, p. 308.)
Speaking of the attempt of some Filipino martial arts systems to trace their roots back to Lapu Lapu, for example, Wiley writes that:
However, while the connection between Lapulapu, the Bothoan, and these masters respective martial arts is historically unfounded, their belief in this connection is of great importance. From an anthropologically (sic) perspective, the historical accuracy of these accounts is less important than what these practitioners believe and why. It is precisely these creation myths which provide the martial arts practitioner with a sense of meaning, identity, and orientation to world historical events in general. To this end, Rosaldo suggests that the researcher can learn much about meaningful action by listening to storytellers as they depict their own lives.
(c) Finally, isnt the fact Wiley has written three (and edited a fourth) books about the Filipino martial arts a cause for celebration? What other author can claim to have done anything similar on the same scale, granting the fact that all of the books written about Filipino martial arts have in some way made it more popular and accessible to the public. In Wileys case I have a question: In separating the wheat from the chaff, havent we thrown away most of the wheat?
Best,
Steve Lamade
