Re. the "kali" issue I reiterate my assertion (originally stated in another thread in this forum) that the use of the word "kali" is legitimate insofar as it reflects a contemporary understanding of the term: "kali" refers to Filipino fighting arts and can be used interchangably with "eskrima" and "arnis." At this point, it would appear that most of us are in agreement about this issue.
With respect to any irritation with the way that "creation myths" are told (to the effect that "kali" is the "mother art" from which all other Filipino martial arts stem) - I consul patience. The source of these stories is folklore (which always retains a tenacious grip on the imagination) - as related by the earliest eskrimadors to teach openly in this country. These stories may well have been included in the first written accounts of FMA (written to introduce and popularize arts for which there was practically no written evidence), and may have contributed further to the attraction of the "kali" myth alluded to above - but most eskrimadors today understand that the "kali" story is just a story.
We should consider that we are in the middle of a "growing up" period with respect to our understanding of the Filipino fighting arts. Now that older generations of Filipino martial artists have successfully passed on their legacy, it is up to the "youngsters" to continue to practice and research the arts to which we have been entrusted. With respect to writing history, my personal experience has been that all intitial attempts are subject to correction: when I wrote a brief history of Momoy Canete and published it on my web page, several people wrote me and offered corrections and additions that I gladly included in the final version:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze4fs8i/momoy.htm
In this respect, Wiley's remarks (in Filipino Martial Culture) about the first attempts to document a tradition (which I exerpt from an earlier post of mine on the Dogbrothers public forum) are interesting:
"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."
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."
(Note: It is perhaps true that Wiley is as much a victim in this regard as the authors whom he criticizes.)
WileyÂ’s additional remarks about oral traditions are particularly noteworthy:
“…(O)ral historiography is considered a legitimate method of inquiry in researching various aspects of Filipino culture today. Demetrio’s 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."
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...the researcher “can learn much about meaningful action by listening to storytellers as they depict their own lives.”
Best,
Steve Lamade
