nationalism
 

Gentlemen,

I owe you an apology for regularly bringing this issue up in a more controversial way than it should be. I also should probably define my position as precise as possible.

Indeed, the "natives" who study their weaponry have a number of advantages - they know the language, they have access to sources that might not be well known globally and they usually can acquire an access to some collections that "outsiders" do not even know about. However in the same time there is no general rule that a "native" knows his weapons better than a "foreigner". Gorelik is an uttermost specialist on Steppe weapons (while not being turkomanish), Astvatzaturjan (armenian) knows circassian weapons better than Nakov or Guchips (circassians) and probably knows chechen weapons better than Aschabov (chechen). Khudjakov knows a lot more about Syberian/monglian weaponry than Kyzlasov.
In the end a better researcher with a solid educational background will always be a better specialist on swords, independent of his/her nationality, place of birth and so on.
Now my second point was not directed for or against the exhibition, I simply referred to a new generation of "scholars" that appeared in the past 20 years. I am myself was often offered money, assistance, publications if I am to agree to promote certain national cause by writing that this nation was inventor of this weapon and was completely superior to the surrounding nations, which were always pathetic and cowardly in comparison, not to mention incapable of inventing new things. I have to admit I have used assistance of the most extreme organizations (which includes extremely right wing asian political parties) in my search for the source documents, however I never agreed to any provisions or conditions concerning my use of these documents.
This said, I know of a large number of weapon researchers whose activities are severely limited either by the policy of their Government (for example one of my russian friends has a problem with researching the russian-chinese border and its "historical" "cossack" roots), or with extreme nationalists. At the same time they can not count on assistance, jobs or respect of "nationalists" since their nationality is different than that of a weapon they research, which I believe to be a tragic and shortsighted policy.
Again, I am myself is not without a "sin" of using the resources, even that of most extremest organizations one can imagine. I have also no problems admitting peculiar trends of "western" historiagraphy (for example Astvatzaturjan cites a very passionate polemics over the origins of a certain sword that was signed as the one from Cairo, where the origin of the polemics in my opinion was essentially that arabs are ulema, and by XVth century could not make swords, therefore the sword's origin must be found elsewhere) or corrupt zionist influence of certain historians, as well as a complete idiocy of Said-like "post-orientalist" approach. And no, I have never collaborated with Harvard researchers of Caspian project and I think their knowledge of Azerbaijan/Caucausus is extremely shallow and may be just as biased as that of CAIS, even though the latter is quite hard to imagine.

In the end I believe that every weapon researcher or enthusiast should be evaluate on her/his personal merit, as well as his/her work. Comments like "he has not been to ...", "what does he know about this culture" and so on should be reserved to the last, editorial section of any critique, i.e. if the person is completely wrong in his writings on a number of subjects, after analyzing these subjects it may be suggested that the author made these mistakes because of his lack of travel experience or language knowledge or something else, like a connection to some nationalist organizations and so on.

Finally, I do believe that all inputs, including speaking to village elders are important, and all of them contain certain biases, but one is better off trusting XVIIth century author on the issue of use of XVIIth century swords rather than XXIst century guru, no matter how "native" the latter is.

THE SMART FELLOW WITH THE MOST DRIVE AND BEST PLAN WHO CAN FOCUS ON HIS FIELD AND NOT BE DISTRACTED AND DEVOTE HIS LIFE TO HIS RESEARCH. THAT IS THE FELLOW WHO WILL GET THE JOB DONE REGARDLESS OF HIS NATIONALITY. BASICALLY WHAT IS DONE ON RESEARCH IS FINDING ALL THE KNOWN INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT REGARDLESS OF LANGUAGE, COUNTRY OR TIME IT WAS WRITTEN. THEN YOU HAVE TO DRAW IT ALL TOGETHER AND DECIDE WHICH VIEWS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG AND COME UP WITH YOUR LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR DIFFERENCES IN INFORMATON AND STATE YOUR THEORYS ON WHAT IS CORRECT. LEGENDS AND STORIES CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE WORK AS THAT IS PART OF THE STORY BUT SHOULD NOT BE REPRESENTED AS FACT UNLESS THEY CAN BE PROVEN.

AS MANY EXAMPLES AS POSSIBLE OF THE ITEMS BEING STUDIED SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND COMPARED REGARDLESS OF THE PROVENANCE WITH THEM. LIVING PEOPLE WHO HAVE KNOWLEGE RELATED TO THE SOCIETY OR TRIBE SHOULD BE INTERVIEWED AS WELL AS OTHER RESEARCHERS AND COLLECTORS OF THOSE ITEMS.

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT PREVENT MANY RESEARCHERS FROM COMPLETEING THEIR RESEARCH IS THE RED TAPE, NATIONALISM, MUSEUMS, TRIBES ,COLLECTORS AND FELLOW RESEARCHERS WHO OFTEN REFUSE TO SHARE THEIR KNOWLEGE. SO RESEARCHERS MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION FROM MANY SOURCES THAT WOULD BE OF GREAT HELP. THATS THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO BE DUE TO THE EMOTIONAL IMATURITY,COMPETION AND DIVISIONS IN THE HUMAN RACE. IF MANKIND COULD WORK TOGETHER STAR TRECK WOULD HAVE BEEN A REALITY AND NOT A TV SHOW. :p

Nationalism is a Romanticism in sheep clothes. That is, as long as it does not degrade into jingoism.
These romantic aspirations are pretty much obvious: who besides the Americans would collect Civil War swords? Most of the Moro weapon collectors are likely to trace their ancestry to the Philippines and native Iranians would sell their birthright for a true Assadollah shamshir :) . Nothing wrong about it: we are all trying one way or another to connect with our past. Deep down, Andrew and Mark may entertain fantasies that their great-grandmothers were from Chiang Mai :D
The problem starts when one denigrates other cultures or other people: this is not romanticism anymore, just plain vileness. The other side of the same coin is the assertion of ethnic superiority in general and of the ability of only "native" person to understand a particular culture (weapons, in our case). What innate advantage does, say, Turkish ancestry offer to the ability to study the evolution of Kilijes? Or Moro to kampilans? Or any other to whatever weapon one wishes to designate? As Rivkin said, language fluency is a great plus, but that is all. Even that is not a prerequisite: Astvatsaturyan is the greatest living specialist in Caucasian weaponry and she repeatedly mentions her gratitude to X and Y for translating Chechen inscriptions. Elgood wrote an astonishingly-good book on South Indian weapons; is he fluent in a bewildering multitude of local dialects?
The ability to read an inscription is just that and no more. It does not translate into academic excellence or even into academic mediocrity: an amateur always remains an amateur.
Most of us here are enthusiastic amateurs (proud to be one!), whether we collect weapons of our ancestors or not. To pretend, however, that one is a true " academician" simply because he or she spent some years traipsing around museums in exotic places and schmoozing with the curators in a native tongue is a laughable hubris.
Nationalism, when used wisely, is a good tool; it should be kept in check, however, to prevent its poisonous transformation.

Very interesting to know your opinions. Please keep posting the deepest feeling you have on this matter... Are enlightening.

Moderators: Please take note that I am not trying to rock the boat. The following post is just another view and opinion of one person, or one nation.



Nationalism is taking pride in the fact that your peoples history is properly documented.

Ask the Native Americans if their history has been properly described and documented by the intruders of their land. They have been described as savages, and worse, in history books and in the movies. All they were doing was fighting to keep their land, but get labeled as an enemy.

The same can be said about the Filipinos and the Moros. I keep them seperated, because they are seperate. The Filipinos fought to keep their land, but gave in to the Spanish. The Moros fought to feep their land, but never gave in to the Spanish. There were a seperate entity throughout the Spanish rule. They followed the Sultan of Sulu, not some King half a world away.
The history the Spanish wrote about the Philippines is half truth. Pigafetta was a historian with a penchant of over exagerrating events.
Lapu-Lapu had more then 1500 men fighting Magellan's 49 men???? And thats why they lost??? It sounds better to report back to the King that you were outnumbered so greatly as for the reason of your lose.
The fact that all these native leaders easily and graciously accepted Chrisianity is another headscratcher. Why else would these rulers convert? Consider the Spanish attitude left over from the Inquisition days.
Convert or die.

The Moros always fought the Spanish and whoever else that tried to take their land. When the Americans "won" the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, they told the Moros that we own you now. How would you like to be told that you are owned by someone you have never heard of? Especially since the Spanish never owned the Moros in the first place?

Here is an article that is very interesting:
http://www.bangsamoro.info/modules/w...p?articleid=28

The Moros were described as savages and bandits. Why? Because they were resisting American Imperialism and defending their land, just like the Native Americans.

The following quote is from that article. It describes Gen. Woods reason for killing the Moro women and children after the American press chastised the military and Gen. Wood for the "massacre".

"I was present throughout practically entire action and inspected top of crater after action was finished. Am convinced no man, woman, or child was wantonly killed. A considerable number of women and children were killed in the fight -- number unknown, for the reason that they were actually in the works when assaulted, and were unavoidably killed in the fierce hand-to-hand fighting which took place in the narrow enclosed spaces. Moro women wore trousers and were dressed and armed much like the men and charged with them. The children were in many cases used by the men as shields while charging troops."

Are we willing to accept his excuse for killing the women and children because he was on the verge of being repremanded by the military and did not want to look like a heartless coward to his peers and family?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Crater_Massacre


In conclusion, getting the dates and facts straight of your history is very important for future readers and generations that will be using your work for reference.

So, on July 4th this year, lets remember those intruders that valiantly fought British Imperialism, so they too can be Imperialists themselves and put all those savages in reservations.

(FYI: I am American born and am very proud to be American. I am in no way demeaning this great country we live in, I just want the written history of my ancestors to be correct)

I realize this is a tangent....
 

Regarding academics and sword studies, what I find interesting is the dichotomy of approaches to swords. Academics approach swords from a historical, cultural, scientific, or aesthetic angle. The warriors who wielded the blades, or skilled martial artists who may have acquired them, approach them from an intuitive physical level. One understands a sword's past, the other understands its present, its immediacy and purpose. When an academic untrained in martial arts speculates over the way a sword was used based on some esoteric fact or hypothesis, I find the result is rarely convincing and often belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the weapon. For example, people who claim that the shamshir cannot be used for stabs. If they'd ever done a martial art with bladed weapons and then practiced with a shamshir, the would find that they are, indeed, quite useful and agile for hooking thrusts. (Conversely, when a martial artist attempts to delve into the academic aspects without a solid academic background, the result is equally untenable.) Intellectual knowledge of the sword without an organic physical understanding is empty. Weapons are intrinsically physical, intended for the immediacy of life and death, rather than lofty ideals of aesthetics or chivalry. That is not to say they cannot have such ideals applied to them; simply it means that such ideals should not be the sole intermediaries in understanding weaponry. I feel that it is far too common in literature regarding weapons to approach them on an exclusively intellectual level.

My ideal sword guru would be a person who mastered physical combat but also studied the history of the sword, addressing all possible angles of knowing the weapon. One great example of a pairing of mental and physical approaches to the sword is the revival of European sword martial arts. By basing a physical approach off of the historical knowledge of weapons manuals (e.g. Liberi's writings) many people are greatly increasing their understanding of the martial arts of their ancestors. This approach was also nationalistic in a positive way, enabling Europeans to reclaim their martial heritage and contribute to the world's martial arts knowledge as a whole. Hopefully more countries will adopt this wholistic and positive approach to history and nationalism (I can't wait til a book about shamshir techniques comes out, then I can stop using my escrima techniques with a Persian sword!)

Ahh nationalism :rolleyes: Sadly the delusion that God and mankind were made in the image of an Englishman left me when I was a young child. Respectively this does not seem to be the case with many other people. :D :D :D :D Oops :o

Mr. tacchini,
In your comment on Amazon.com ( addressed to me), you said:"...we've collected enough material to bury you with your own hate" and threatened to report me to Amazon.
Please feel free to add my current posting to the file assembled by you and your Merry Gang of Attack Poodles.

I think that nationalistic fervour is born from one's need to portray one's country in a greatr light than it is. A nationalist will see his/her country as occupying a unique important role in the world, or representing some unique aspect of humanity that cannot be found anywhere else. This becomes expressed in history, art, politics, and so on. The real impartial truth of past events is glossed over and moulded to demonstrate some particular ideal. The same goes for weapons...in the article linked by Ariel, the Russian smith saw himself as one of a handful of brilliant bladesmiths able to re-discover crucible steel after the great Anosov uncovered its secrets. The Iranian author of the article used this in support of his own view that Iranian/Persian blades of crucible steel were the best ever made. As a Romanian I could start presenting the great valour of my ancestors who resisted Celts, Romans, Huns, Tartars, Turks and so on and conclude that without them Europe would have been lost to the innumerable hordes many times. A look at cold, academic historical accounts will show otherwise however. Of course many many sources are needed to corroborate any fact, and every source will have some bias. The nationalist will naturally choose the source whose bias confirms his/her own and present it as academic/historical truth.

As for western martial arts and specifically unarmed martial arts, I think many individuals and nations have started feeling the need to demonstrate their own historical prowess in the face of eastern martial arts practices. It seems like some wish to show that they too also could fly through the air, walk on water and sweep away hundreds of incoming arrows with a simple gesture and lots of billowing cloth. I think it's very important for a culture to return to its martial characteristics and learn them but only so long as they uphold the purity of what they find. If it's simple wrestling and unrefined punching, so be it, but don't add flying kicks and fancy blocks. The nationalist prefers to develop an impressive construct than accept the simplicity and banality of the truth. He/she will present something that equals or surpasses every other nation in everything, instead of finding that one single, particularly defining trait that is not found anywhere else, if such a thing exists and focus upon it. I recently found out that Romanian weapons were essentially the same as those of neighbouring countries, namely greatly influenced by Ottomans, Tartars and Western Europeans. The same with armour, and battle tactics - if any. Decoration might be the one thing that is local, but even then one never knows. The falx is the one unique attribute, but it goes too far back and it's too much a derivasion of the rhomphaia the weapon of our Thracian cousins. I wish I had some ethnic Romanian weapons not found anywhere else, but aside from some cool shepherd staffs and some nice axes that look a lot like the Persian Tabar, there isn't much. I love the country though and will defend it with a flaming tongue in any serious or inebriated discussion. Pride is the one good aspect of nationalism. One should be proud of one's nation/people...after all they've made it this far...but be proud for truthful things, not constructs.

So much for Nationalism
Emanuel

Gentlemen (and any ladies out there as well :) ) It seems to me that we are entering into a debate which has no definitive "black or white" answer. I certainly understand Shelley's point of view here. Often enough we only have the perspective of the conquerer to go by and it is obviously a skewed one. We certainly saw that in this country (USA) for quite a long time with the Native American, though i do think it is fair to say that the pendulum has swung back a bit in this regard. We really do not see the Hollywood impression of the savage Indians that we once saw in the old cowboy & indian movies because we have become a too saavy to except that as realistic. In fact we are in danger of seeing that pendulum swing too far in the other direction. The life of the Indian was not a peaceful and idyllic eden either, as some more modern movements would lead us to believe. There is a modern tendency to over romanticize the life of the "noble savage". People are people. There are good and bad, kind and cruel, in every culture.
The Philippines is, unfortunately, a part of history that is not so well remembered by the American people. It was a far and distant war that didn't really effect life here all that much and was easy to sweep under the rug, so to speak. American are easily apathetic about wars that don't effect the quality of their personal lives. I don't think the average American has any real understanding of the Filipino or Moro cultures or what differences there are between them...or for that matter, why we fought a war with the Moro or even THAT we had such a war. In such a climate the stories put forth by the American military and western historians is bound to be skewed, but accepted. From my perspective the Moros from that time were no doubt freedom fighters and their side of the story needs telling. Who better to tell it than the native Filipino or Moro.
If we speak with present day Moros we are bound to find exaggeration and legend in their stories too, but i am not sure that makes those stories any less "true" than the tales of western historians that were written from the perspective of the conquering forces. It is just a different perspective. I am afraid that we will never find definitive and absolute truths here. That is what makes this debate moot. We will only find different perspectives, each with their own relative truths. Each has a right to be spoken. Each should be examined with a critical eye and we will each come to our own personal conclusions based on the information presented.
So to me it is rediculous to put any more credence in one perspective over another. The "truth" most probably lies somewhere in between. I am not sure that we as a spieces are actually capable of looking at ourselves and our actions from a completely objective position. All history is therefore somewhat skewed. Everyone's histories need to have a place in the history books. :)
Now, as for weapons in particular, since that should utlimately be the focus of any discussion on these forums, i would imagine that the reports on the usage of the ethnographic weaponry of a particular culture from the perspective of a conquering force (i.e. a U.S. Army report on Moro weapons) would likely be very accurate even if the moral question of a particular massacre might not be. It might, in fact, be more accurate than a modern day account from a Moro who never actually welded a kris or a barong in battle. But at the same time that Moro might be able to tell me more about some esorteric point about the kris that the battlefield report from 1902 would probably have overlooked. So in the study of this weapon i would probably find valuable information from both accounts. If i wanted to know technical information about how this blade functioned in battle the U.S. Marine's account could be more accurate. But if i wanted info on the talismanic side.... :)

I strongly agree and disagree--I think nationalism tends towards emphasizing the positive in order to an imply a negative about everyone else. However, I think there is such a thing as positive nationalism, since every country has something unique that is unknown anywhere else. Nationalism can be made to overemphasize it and turn a point of pride into a tool of hate, but I don't think it does so by nature. In my opinion, it is distinctly possible to be proud of one's country and its unique contributions to human heritage and at the same time respect the contributions of other societies and countries as well, much as a musician may be proud of their knowledge and skill and still revel in the contribution of their colleagues to the greater sound of the symphony as a whole. Perhaps my disagreement is just semantics--constructive nationalism may just be called patriotism, in which case nationalism would always be the negative flip-side.

And David, that was ridiculously well-said. I couldn't agree more with your summary.

Agreed! :)
Here "nationalist" carries a somewhat negative tone. I think I better say that the nationalist or overly-patriotic individual tends to over-emphasize or exaggerate some aspect of his/her culture. This feeling may escalate into an air of superiority and turn nasty. I'm all for patriotism and pride though, as long as it is founded on truth.

About the Philippines...the discussions on this forum have been my introduction to this country and its people. I am impressed and feel that Filipinos justly have plenty to be proud of. As I understand so far, they lost in their struggle against the Spanish and later against the Americans. That battles were masscres is undeniable I think and a moot point - wars are ugly. In the need to conquer fast and show success to the upper hierarchy, rough measures are carried out. The Americans massacre as every other colonial power did, and their motives are irrelevant. Whether it was because they couldn't tell women apart from men, or that they specifically wanted to kill the women is again irrelevant - they did it. I'm certain that the people of the Philippines did the same in their own wars prior to colonialization. So it goes and so it has always been. Filipino manuals will write the Filipino part while American manuals will write the American part. The researcher (of weapons or other things) will sift through all this and find out the simple cold truth of action and events. He can determine the credibility of each source in providing each piece of data and work with it accordingly.
Numbers become irrelevant in conflicts I think- whether 100 were killed or thousands were butchered, the fact remains that a lot of people were killed at one specific moment in time as the result of deliberate action. Questions of resistance, insurgents, bandits or terrorist are moot in this point I think. The invading powers are ultimately responsible for this, since death is a result of their presence.

I think that invading powers will always try to present their actions as good and heroic against unruly, mean savages in order to preserve moral justification even when there isn't any. The indians were beastly savages for attacking poor settlers who only wanted to cultivate the land given to them by the government. The Filipinos and Moros were savages for not accepting benevolent Spanish/American rule. On the other side, the savages were heros bravely defending their homeland against the barbaric invaders who wanted to steal their God-given land. In most cases I think the invaded has the moral justification to resist an invader...not everyone agrees with this though.

Emanuel

What it really really is not true!!!!! :eek: I will start to cry. :(

Manolo,
We can't rewrite the history that has already been written. All we can do is put out for everyone to read, is the other side.

Am I bitter that the Spanish took over the islands and called them the Philippines? No.
Am I bitter that the Americans won the Philippines? No.
The Spanish did some great things for the islands they called the Philippines.
The Americans also did great things for them. Without the Americans, I wouldnt be here today.

Am I bitter that the history that was written about them might be skewed? Yes.
Am I bitter that history written today has factual errors? Yes.

Unfortunetely, we cant go back in time and write the real history, whether the truth hurts or not.

I am willing to accept the truth if it hurts, as long as its the truth.
I will not be bias in my search for the true facts of any event. If we lost, we lost. Can't be biased if the facts are true.

Everyone heralds MacArthur as the savior of the Philippines during WWII.
Read the history books.
Now, go ask any of the vets living today, that he left behind when the Japanese took over, if he was a hero. Ask them what their side of the story is. Ask the Bataan death march survivors. These are people that today, we can get the real truth from.
I understand that war is war and you have to do anything to win, but to leave out facts in the history books about what really took place, is wrong. Thats National pride at its worst.

I praise our famous writter, Mark Twain, for trying to relay the real truth.
And he was American. He didnt have National pride bias when writing his letters about the Battle of Bud Dajo.

http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailte..._featarms.html

Shelley, i am all for seeking alternatives to the side of the story that has been presented by the U.S. Government in this and ,in fact, many other actions, both past and present. But i wonder if this forum is the place for a debate of this scope. I would hope we could keep this discussion on topic, which from my perspective is how we study ethnographic weapons. I fear that this conversation has the potention to spiral into a much larger debate on international politics and morality. Can we talk about the weapons? How has the western perspective skewed the history of the Moro kris, for instance, or the barong. The historical perspective that you are raising here is indeed tragic, but can we tie this into the topic?

Thas is true LabanTayo, and it is sad when it is still ongoing. That's when nationalism becomes politics. A government will not teach new generations that some of its passed actions were bad. That's just a sort of propaganda. The important thing is for people to seek alternative sources and find all sides of a story in order to make up your mind and form an understanding of the matter. That people are kept ignorant of their country's true history is visible in the US and Canada as well I think. I don't think that can be changed to easily. The best thing a prof or even a parent can do is direct students to different views to make them understand that there are different sides of history and different truths.

The other thing about nationalism is that it renders one blind. The nationalist may forget history for the sake of patriotic pride, and his/her resulting actions may certainlly have adverse effects on others.

That's frustrating as hell I think...not meant in an offensive way but there is the expression of the "self-righteous idiot" the one who may be totally wrong, but so determined that his/her view is the God-given truth that he/she will not see reason no matter how hard one tries to show them. The self-righteous idiot knows that his country is great and good and has always been so, and any point to the contrary is wrong. Not much you can do against this attitude.

to fully understand the the weapons we collect, we have to learn about the people who used them, the way they used them, and against whom they used them.
if we believe gen. wood and his report, the moros used the barong and kris as a projectile weapon.
thats news to me and i tried it out on one of my ivory kris's. i tried to kill a defensless rabbit with it. i threw the sword too hard, overshot my target, and the rabbit came up and bit my toe.
i went back in the house and told my wife i got in a horrible fight with a carrot weilding rabbit and stubbed my toe, hence the bloody cut.
as far as she's concerned, i told her the truth.
but the truth is that i thought what gen. wood said was true and tried it myself and failed.
so, in collecting philippine swords, i had to read the history books and got bit.

there, i tied it to a weapons related subject.
:):):)

David, I also think you summarized it quite nicely. American accounts and photographs may present the cold facts about what weapons were used and how they were employed. The native population will know what the weapon was and what its intended purpose was.

As for perception of the kris, my own experience has been that nowadays any wavy/snaky blade is called a kris blade, and there is the misconception that it will cause greater damage in a stab than a straight blade because it stakes its way into the body. I found it hard to detract some people from this view. There is also a seller on ebay that claims the kris was known to be superior to Toledo swords...whatever that may mean :shrug: I do not know if the seller is Filipino/Indonesian or not but that's a big claim to make.

Emanuel

agreed.
:)

LabanTayo, are there any Filipino knives used as projectiles? If so, Wood's account could be understood as soldiers would group all the weird Filipino weapons as kris and barong.

Emanuel

the only projectile weapons i know of in the philippines are the blow gun, slingshot and flip-flops. :):)

:D :p :D "...INCOMIIIING...SHOE"

Were there any foreign observers at the time? Brits, Spaniards, Dutch and Asians were still active in the region. Are there no accounts from them? You could take them with a somewhat higher degree of impartiality no?

As Gen. Wood reported, all Moros were exterminated. No live witnesses on their side.
I found somewhere on the net, where some of the marines present at that battle, had written letters home and some were published. they were not too fond of the tactics being used by wood. i am still trying to find it so i can post a link.

here it is:

http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/soldiers.html

You are the second person in the American history attacked by a rabbit: the first one was ex-President Jimmy Carter.
http://www.newsoftheodd.com/article1021.html
An epidemics in the making....

Closed Pending Review
 

Jeez, I can't even watch the playoffs !
I'll read this after Dinner. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: