Talk:First Battle of Bud Dajo

Merger
I'm proposing this merger for these reasons:


 * 1) The Moro Crater Massacre is an alternative name for the (First) Battle of Bud Dajo, or more accurately, it is a name for the final phase of the battle.
 * 2) There was a second (and much less bloody) battle fought at Bud Dajo by Black Jack Pershing during his term as the governor of Moro Province. The article over this particular battle should be called the "First Battle of Bud Dajo" in order to distinguish between the two.

I've written a paper for school over this battle, and since it got an A, I'm fairly confident it's not a complete turd. ;-) I'll be using the paper as the basis for a new article, then tweak it and add some material from the two existing articles. After that, I'm planning on doing some revamping on the Moro Rebellion article, then come back here and see if there are any comments.

Unless somebody objects, I plan on turning Moro Crater Massacre into a redirect to here. I also plan on turning Battle of Bud Dajo into a redirect here, and then turn it into a disambig once we have an article over the Second Battle of Bud Dajo. I might change my mind and just do a disabmig from the start, with the Second Battle of Bud Dajo redlinked. Anybody know which route is standard in such situations? crazyeddie 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hugh Lennox Scott
I discovered a link (and very nice pd pic) on Hugh Scott. It appears that Scott was governor and military commander at Jolo according to Who's Who in America, 1932. BusterD 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias in this article
I think there is a number of unbalanced items which bias this article.

The references provided and the language are selected to provide one point of view - negative towards the Moro and apologetic towards American forces.

Hermann Hagedore describes the Moro as the rag-tag-and-bobtail remnants of two or three revolts, the black sheep of a dozen folds, rebels against the poll tax, die-hards against the American occupation, outlaws recognizing no datto and condemned by the stable elements among the Moros themselves.

Vic Hurley, author of Swish of the Kris, adds that the causes contributing to the battle of Bud Dajo were resentment over the curtailing of slave-trading, cattle-raiding, and women-stealing privileges of the Moros of Sulu

Missing are other points of view - such as Mark Twain or Charles Byler at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/byler.pdf.

Other unbalanced comments are:

''Wood's explanation of the high number of women and children killed stated that the women of Bud Dajo dressed as men and joined in the combat, and that the men used children as living shields. (Lane, pg. 129) Hagedorn supports this explanation, by giving an account of a Lt. Gordon Johnston, who was severely wounded by a woman warrior. (pg. 65) ''

This appears to blame the Moro for the killing of non-combatants.

Could there be another explanation of the killing of every single woman and child?

As the article says it is generally understood by historians of the Moro Rebellion that Moros did have a habit of taking their non-combatants with them into their fortifications, even (perhaps especially) in last-stand situations

Would it be more accurate to state : it is generally understood by historians of the Moro Rebellion that American soldiers did have a habit of killing all women and children found in a fortified village where military force was resisted?

And why are the numbers of women,children and other non-combatants not listed? Or are they considered part of the 1000 combatants given in the info box?

Herne nz 04:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a person who watches this article, I believe there is systemic bias in almost every article on this pedia, but there's no intentional bias present here. I think of this article as a work in progress, and it's now is the "wait for feedback and contributions" phase. So your comments are not only appropriate, they're entirely welcome. While I haven't made any changes recently myself, I tend to concur with the basic assertions that this was a notable military engagement, and that this was not the proudest moment in American military history. I encourage you to add well-sourced assertion to the article (I've recently brought the Byler piece to crazyeddie's attention). In other words, please feel free to edit the article to help counter this bias. Perhaps offer to assist in eddie's or my other related projects. If you've got information to share, I'm very enthusiastic in seeing it presented. I suspect others are equally interested. And Welcome to Wikipedia! BusterD 04:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes are - Sulu Island is incorrect. Naval guns are fired from ships? The references in source are to mountain artillery, carried to the volcano rim. Am I correct in this? Also changed from 'primitive " weapons ( as used by primitive people) to traditional weapons.

To quote 'wish of the Kris ''By no stretch of the imagination could Bud Dajo be termed a "battle." Certainly the engaging of 1,000 Moros armed with krises, spears and a few rifles by a force of 800 Americans armed with every modern weapon was not a matter for publicity. The American troops stromed a high mountatin peak crowned by fortifications to kill 1,000 Moros with a loss to themselves of twenty-one killed and seventy-five wounded! the casualty lists reflect the unequeal nature of the battle.''

I am introducing the dispute over battle or massacre,based on the unequal nature of the conflict, not the disparity in those killed.
 * Make sure to sign your messages so your intent is clear. Jolo island. Check. Naval gunboat fire actually used, check. Read the long Mark Twain passage in the Moro Crater massacre article (that article piqued my interest for this whole field.) I like your construction as it regards weapons. Keep going. You're doing great. BusterD 07:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I re-read that passage and it talks about a naval detachment, which I presume was servicemen (marines?) from the navy and on foot. The volcano is over 2 000 feet high and in the tropics, and I think a Filipino version  refers to the battle in the clouds - making a navalbombardment difficult I would think. I did read somewhere of mountain artillery and block and tackles to put artilery on the rim.

Here is a quote: ''The assault units at Bud Dajo were composed of 272 men of the 6th Infantry, 211 men of the 4th Calvary, 68 men of the 28th Artillery Battery, 51 Sulu Constabulary, 110 men of the 19th Infantry and 6 sailors from the gunboat Pampanga. A total number of 790 men and officers was engaged.'' http://www.bakbakan.com/swishk/swk3-19.html

Herne nz 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes in para 2 - added 'included women and children' to numbers inside crater, changed US killed from quarter of engaged forces as 'actively engaged forces' not defined and sources give actual numbers.

Herne nz 08:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A WWII era 5" naval gun could fire a projectile many miles away and hit an airplane at 12,000 feet, so I suspect that range and elevation would not be the issue. I'd encourage you to let crazyeddie in on this discussion (by showing a bit of patience) before making huge changes, I suspect he'll be just as excited as I to get some new opinions on this subject. If you want little treat, visit my sandbox, I'm working on the Juramentado article (slowly). BusterD 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * <>


 * The references provided were not selected, but were simply what I had available in my state university's library or could find on the web for free. They were also limited by my researching ability, so further sources would be helpful. (and I might actually find time to read them!) Vic Hurley and Hermann Hagedorn are admittedly (blatantly) pro-American. They were writting in the '30s and were a product of their time. Lane and Smythe were writting in the 70s, so are a bit more moderate (or at least are a product of their time, which is not so removed from ours). I'm aware of Mark Twain's comments, but I'm not really sure how to put it in. I'd actually be a lot more interested in any contemporary account of the Moros' own views of the battle, as Twain's account has its own problems, being less of a history and more of an editorial and even more biased (on an opposing side) than Hurley. For example, Twain ignores the casualties the Americans experienced during the initial days of the battle, and focuses exclusively on the final massacre. But I'm aware opposing viewpoints need to be included, so I'm open to suggestions, or even someone being bold and sticking it in somehow. I wasn't aware of Charles Byler's work, I'll take a look at it when I get a chance.


 * The langauge is mostly my own, and probably reflects my own bias (possibly acquired from my sources). Feel free to tweak it. I'll feel free to tweak it back or comment on the talk page if I disagree, as will any other passerby. Hopefully some semblance of neutrality or objectivitity will result :-)


 * <>


 * Another way of putting it is that Wood was attempting to place women (and possibly children) in the category of combatants rather than non-combatants. In which case, yes, it is standard military practice to kill somebody who is actively trying to kill you, regardless of their age or sex. Now whether or not Wood was lying/misrepresenting or not in order to cover his a** is open to question...


 * <>


 * Yes, such as that they were collateral damage in the final bombardment, which admittedly was a bit of overkill. There are other, darker, explanations possible, but they weren't spelled out in the sources I used. For the record, Wood was an ethnocentric goon, but I'm personally not sure how much of a role that played in this particular battle.


 * <<''Would it be more accurate to state :

"it is generally understood by historians of the Moro Rebellion that American soldiers did have a habit of killing all women and children found in a fortified village where military force was resisted?"''


 * No, because, as I understand it, such general massacres were the exception rather than the rule. IMO, 1st Bud Dajo is similar to the Battle of Pandapatan/Bayan. In both cases, the American forces faced strong fortifications which caused them to suffer heavy losses during the intial stages of the battle, followed by a general massacre after the fortifications were finally breached. As I said, both cases were the exception, not the rule. In fact, long before 1st Bud Dajo, the Americans had worked out "cotta-busting" tactics that were explicitly designed to reduce fortified villages with a minimum of bloodshed. The Americans would set up their more advanced artillery outside of the range of the Moros' own artillery (which they didn't have at either Bud Dajo, being a bit difficult to lug up the mountain) and small arms. The Moros couldn't attack, being out of range, and a rush into the American rifles would be suicide. They would be forced to retreat, and the Americans would generally allow them to escape unopposed. The idea was to demonstrate the futility of resistance, not, repeat not, rack up a bodycount. The usual bodycount of such a battle would be something like 120 Moros dead, 1 American killed and maybe three wounded. The Battle of Pandapatan occured before this tactic was developed, while the conditions at Bud Dajo prevented it from being used there. Also, there was a second battle at Bud Dajo, with similar opposing forces as the first one, but the bodycount was much, much, lower. (Which I plan on writing an article about Real Soon Now.)

A bit of a troll really. I was making a statement to reflect the earlier one - as you say, when under attack do you bring your family into the fort or leave them outside?


 * On the other hand, the Moros did consitently withdraw their noncombatants to their fortifications when battle threatened. It only makes sense after all - are you going to leave them exposed to the mercy of the enemy? But it did increase the risk of civilian causalties for the Americans. The langauge, IIRC, is my own, feel free to tweak so it's less clunky.


 * At any rate, like Buster says, it's nice to see somebody else interested in this rather obscure chapter of history! crazyeddie 09:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes a massacre a massacre? Is it the relative bodycount or the relative forces? I would think it would be the former, unless one side was completely unarmed. crazyeddie 09:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Massacre is when, after military objective is achieve you go on a killing spree with they goal of "killing anythign that moves". Under no circumstance can you get into 90% casualties rate (where non-combatants form a majority) in case the winning side does not *intend* to physically eliminate/kill the opponent includings all its kin. Basically this engagement was punitive expedition meant to "kill em all". Not even durng the middle ages rules of "three days to pillage" were casualty rates as high.83.240.20.46 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what makes a massacre. To say the relative bodycount was too low suggests too many Moro were killed - or too few Americans. Too many Moro suggests excessive force was used - which sounds absurd in a war. I think an element of unfairness is a factor but I can see it both ways.

Makes a change for me as I have been looking at New Zealand land wars lately where my bias makes it difficult for me. Hope I make the article here stronger.

Quite happy to see you change some of my revisions back, That naval one is bugging me.

Herne nz 10:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)-

July 15 changes

 * Restored the naval bombardment langauge in the first paragraph. Changed the description of the Moros weaponary to "melee." "Primative" implies that the Moros were also primative, "traditional" implies that they preferred to fight that way. On the other hand, this langauge might show that I play too much D&D :-) crazyeddie


 * I added mention of the lopsided causalties to the massacre langauge, and made mention that the massacre label better applies to the final phase of the battle. crazyeddie


 * Some changes to the second paragraph, for reasons of aesthetics. crazyeddie


 * Combined the explanations paragraphs, removed the langauge about the Moros bring noncombatants into their fortifications. crazyeddie

Byler
I took a look over the Byler article. It looks like it agrees closely with the facts I've gathered from other sources, with a slight difference in perspective. I'll have to edit the Moro Rebellion article with it in mind. Some tidbits of relevance to this article:


 * "Moros were angered by the killing of women and children -- a result of the indiscriminate firing by U.S. soldiers and the Moro practice of taking their entire families into the cottas when troops moved against them." page 43 (page 3 of 5 on the pdf)

Confirmation of what I said earlier, coupled with a further, less pro-American, explanation. This is referring to American attacks on cottas in general, not Bud Dajo.


 * "Hundreds of displaced, fearful, and angry Moros gathered near Jolo's Bud Dajo volcano following an attack on several datus..." (same page)

This appears to be the same as Hagedorns' "the rag-tag-and-bobtail remnants of two or three revolts..." but with a differenct perspective. I like Byler's perspective better, but Hagedorn provides more information. Going to have to find some way of combining the two.


 * "The datus were unable to persuade their followers[...] a development the datus blamed on U.S. polices. As they pointed out, the imposition of a new legal code and the willingness of U.S. officials to overturn the datus' judicial rulings had caused an erosion of the datus' authority." (same)

I'm not sure if this had direct causal impact, or if it's just the datus bitching about their loss of status. I get the impression that even in the best of times, although they might be impressed by the Sultan of Sulu, they wouldn't follow the orders of anybody but their own datus - and who knows what had happened to those? Eventually replacing the Moros' fuedalistic, personalistic style of leadership with a more democratic, individualistic society was a goal of the Americans, which was no doubt quite popular with the datus. However, it is a possible explanation of the events, and it isn't our job as Wikipedians to report what "really" happened (which would open up a rather large epistemological can of worms), but what other people said happened. So we need to include this in the article.


 * Cites "over 600 dead".

As opposed to 800 or 1000 dead. Byler is probably just being on the safe side though, given the "over" langauge. In general, the Americans didn't keep careful records of Moro causalties, and I think the 6 Moros survivors had more pressing issues than paperwork.


 * "Wood had ended the resistance, but at the cost of creating long-lasting Moro resentment."

This is the first mention of the Moro response to Bud Dajo, as opposed to Stateside anti-imperalist responses. The exception to this is one interview with the datus who were the go-betweens during the failed pre-battle negotiations. Their comments were so pro-American that you could practically see Wood's lips moving when they spoke.

I'll also have to track down Byler's sources and see what they have to add to the mix. crazyeddie 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging the article Moro Crater massacre into this article in accordance with the following reference:.

Moro Crater massacre is an alternate name given to the battle which is the subject of this article by those such as Mark Twain who opposed the United States in the Philippines.

Per WP:CANVASS I will notify relevant wikiprojects of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Pershing is a directly involved party and had reason NOT to use the more popular contemporary term, as your source actually says. I came here all ready to oppose and duke it out, and then I looked at the page histories of this article, the Massacre article, and the Battle of Bud Dajo article (the latter two where all this got started). Something is seriously missing. And the more I considered it, the more I got caught in the nostalgia for how I edited way back then, the more I thought the request appropriate and desirable. As a long time contributor in this subjectspace, I support such a merge. I'd like to make sure the Massacre stays in the article not just as a bolded alternative title and redirect, but also a section title (perhaps in quotes; I know that's unusual and deprecated) explaining media and public reaction to initial reports. The Massacre title is essential to the true telling of the story of this disgusting but little known chapter in the tome of American military prowess. BusterD (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I further desire that the incident remain on the List of events named massacres. It's unquestionable that over the hundred years intervening the incident has been far better known (especially in its time) as a massacre, even though the more modern name appears more often in recent sources. BusterD (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Massacre title is not the common name, but an alternate name. The content about alleged killing of women and children is already included in this article, and IMHO is very well balanced. I don't know why was ready to "duke it out", as this is a merger discussion, not an AfD. Both articles talk about the same event. This article's title gets 4.3k google hits, while the Massacre name gets 2.3k. Therefore, COMMONNAME clearly applies, and allegations about the alleged killing of civilians can be merged into this article (which it already does quiet well, as I already stated).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I'm getting so much of an argument when I've already supported the merge. Please excuse my hyperbole. I hoped the context of my comments made it clear I was exaggerating. The massacre incident is a sort of sensitive spot in my early editing history. When I first read about it I didn't believe the incident occurred, that it had to be some anti-imperialist propaganda of some sort. There's a substantial amount of edit history which has been deleted per OTRS ticket. And Moro Crater Massacre was the common name for some substantial time in the incident's early history. The google search results posted are also revealing: many (perhaps a majority) of the title results are mirrors or reuses of our own page work (mostly American-centric sources), and many (also perhaps a majority) of the massacre search results come from contemporaneous sources (or Filipino-centric sources). The Gbook searches, for example, don't support the invocation of COMMONNAME: massacre (526 ghits) vs. first battle (247 ghits). Purely statistical views of common name often overlook the forest in favor of counting trees. Normally such arguments should be made in the original merge proposal. But again, as a longtime page participant, I support the merge. BusterD (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, a merge/redirect from Moro Crater massacre to this article seems to make the most sense to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The massacre is an event within the Battle much like the Manila massacre during the Battle of Manila (1945). I say keep both articles but change the focus of the Battle focusing on military events while the massacre on the civilian impact and socio-cultural context, such as literature from Mark Twain. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO focusing om literature from Mark Twain regarding the battle would be a WP:POVFORK, and would be unnecessary. Mark Twain's views of the battle, and others who are referred to in reliable sources as anti-imperialist, are well covered in this article and in the Philippine–American War article.
 * Presently, there is a three to one majority for merger.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on First Battle of Bud Dajo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509060409/http://www.bakbakan.com/swishk/swk3-19.html to http://www.bakbakan.com/swishk/swk3-19.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080202051651/http://bakbakan.com/swishkb.html to http://bakbakan.com/swishkb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512001221/http://www.bakbakan.com/swishk/swk3-18.html to http://www.bakbakan.com/swishk/swk3-18.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080202051651/http://bakbakan.com/swishkb.html to http://bakbakan.com/swishkb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on First Battle of Bud Dajo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bakbakan.com/swishk/swk3-19.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bakbakan.com/swishkb.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bakbakan.com/swishk/swk3-18.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bakbakan.com/swishkb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120816002035/http://library.stanford.edu:80/depts/hasrg/hdis/ to http://library.stanford.edu/depts/hasrg/hdis/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on First Battle of Bud Dajo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://library.stanford.edu/depts/hasrg/hdis/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325224127/http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/cr/moro.htm to http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/cr/moro.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080712175811/http://www.bakbakan.com/swishkb.html to http://www.bakbakan.com/swishkb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)