Re: Is modern Aikido based on the atomic bomb rather than the sword?
 

As a Filipino and a student of my own country's history, I will have to agree with Senor Cereijo that this is a myth. There is no recorded battle where the natives of the Philippine Islands armed solely with sticks won over sword-armed Spaniards. Even at the Battle of Mactan in 1521 where Ferdinand Magellan was slain, the natives led by their chief, Lapulapu, are recorded as being armed not only with "sticks hardened in fire" but with iron-tipped spears and cutlasses. Oh, and they outnumbered the Spaniards by almost one hundred to one.. hardly a fair fight.
However, I'll have to disagree that this myth arose as a result of "Nationalist BS" because no credible Filipino Historian ever peddled the tale of "stick-armed Filipinos defeating sword-armed Spaniards". This myth was most probably started by martial arts teachers trying to hype the "deadly" techniques of their school.

Re: Is modern Aikido based on the atomic bomb rather than the sword?
 

Inocencio, thank you so much for that!

Yes, and in fact, I heard it personally from a world-ranked Kali player I used to train with.

I wonder how many other myths have been started by martial arts schools to hype themselves. LOL. Hmmm, can we think of any? : )

Re: Is modern Aikido based on the atomic bomb rather than the sword?
 

Hi Inocencio,

The myth I was referring to was the banning of Filipino martial arts practise by the spanish colonial government. We talked about this issue some time ago.

Re: Is modern Aikido based on the atomic bomb rather than the sword?
 

Yes, I agree that is also a myth. Again no credible Filipino historian has ever wrote of an edict or law issued by the Spanish Colonial Government in the Philippines banning the practise of martial arts. Also, the most nationalist of Filipino Historians, such as Teodoro Agoncillo and Renato Constantino never wrote about any banning of martial arts training. This myth probably originates again from martial arts teacher hype. In fact, it is the theory of Dr Ned Nepangue and Celestino Macachor, in their book "Cebuano Eskrima: Beyond the Myth", that the Filipino Martial arts in Cebu developed as a result of Spanish soldiers and /or the Jesuit warrior priests training the native auxiliaries to fight off the pirates raiding from the southernmost island of the Philippines (Mindanao). This would be impossible if martial arts training was forbidden.
Also, it was a well known tactic of the Spanish colonial government to suppress revolts by one ethnic group by using soldiers from another ethnic group. These auxiliaries would need to be trained, again this would not be possible if there was an outright ban on martial arts training.
The existence of various Salas de armas, (halls of weapons training) are recorded, and these flourished near the end of the 19th century, especially in Manila. These places are were Filipino nationalists like Dr Jose Rizal and Gen Antonio Luna learned fencing and other martial arts.
Also to the martial arts being disguised as dances, when I learned my arnis, I was never taught it as a dance. I was taught solo drills, two person drills, and free-sparring but never dancing.
That certain styles of Filipino martial arts are related to the "Moro-Moro" (musical plays commemorating the Reconquista) is probably true as there are styles that have a documented connection to this stage tradition.
Apologies for the thread drift. If Jun-san wishes to spin this off into another thread, I have no objection.

Kind regards,