political correctness, and other such BS in Chinese martial art

[Truewrestler]

Very interesting read:

http://martial.best.vwh.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=24406

[Yevin Orion]

interesting indeed...

I see he does use logic to come to some of his conclusions, but then again some of what he states seems to lack sources.

He goes to great lengths to say that the arts were firstly developed by such people, but never says where he actually gets this information from or what information caused him to deduce this.

A very good article, but I just don't think I can fully agree with it as he tends to discredit the history that we are familiar with, with only his theories.

[Plum Blossom]

It was an interesting read but the author seemed to conveniently leave out vital facts about Chinese history. This is not uncommon when someone is trying to demonstrate a point- they often omit details that may contradict what they are trying to prove.

The fact is, the main period that the author refers to is the Qing dynasty. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of pre-communist China will know that the Qing dynasty was ruled by the Manchurians who were not from China. It was the Manchurians who introduced pigtails and footbinding to China, customs that either mirrored their own culture or were designed to humiliate the native Chinese. The Manchurians also introduced other oppressive measures to China, and curbing the influence of martial arts were among them. Thus martial arts were forced underground, since martial artists (who were not in the pay of the Manchurians) were rightly seen as a threat to the government. For example, this is one of the reasons that Yang style tai chi doesn't immediately martial like Chen style.

If we look at David A Ross' direct quote:
"In the case of martial artists, the need to do so was made more important by the fact that these individuals were also strongly associated with those groups which traditionally challenged central authority (i.e. regional military units, secret societies, and brotherhoods). The social stigma also prompted many of those who practiced martial arts to also attempt to legitimize their practice."

He has failed to mention that most of these secret societies and brotherhoods (such as the Heaven and Earth Cult) were set up to challenge the oppressive Manchurian government. The stigma was not social in nature, but like many resistance groups throughout history it was due to fear of the state. That is not to say that all martial artists were virtuous and well-intentioned, it's just that Mr Ross has made a gross generalisation by saying that martial artists were all disgruntled rejects who bore a grudge against the state because they couldn't pass the military exams. This is absolute codswallop, since most martial artists were already scholars in their own right. You had to be to fully understand the concepts behind many traditional martial arts.

Unfortunately many of these secret societies have evolved into the modern day Triad organisations, but this is not very surprising. Almost every successful organised criminal organisation has sprung from idealistic and noble aims which have been compromised and perverted until the original principles have been forgotten.

"Both limited opportunities and the lack of social acceptance resulted in a movement by some to legitimize the practice of martial arts. Following the example set by herbalists and bone setters, martial artists attempted to establish themselves as members of the "Kung" or artisan class. They began to open schools ("Mo Gwoon" in Cantonese dialect). "
Unfortunately Mr Ross has neglected to mention that bone setting or "dit da" practice was developed by martial artists. Dit da only exists because martial artists had to adapt traditional herbal remedies to heal their own trauma injuries. The art of dit da cannot be separated from the martial aspects. This is why dit da practitioners are invariably martial artists themselves. The relationship is symbiotic, because without martial arts, dit da knowledge would have died with the Cultural revolution.

Not to say that martial artists are all peaceful men of course. Obviously there were many thugs and the like in pre-Communist China, just as there are in the modern world.

The great thing is that Mr Ross seems to have studied 20th Century China in greater detail, quoting dates and specific events, but just makes very general statements concerning the hundreds of years before this. This would imply a lack of knowledge. As Yevin Orion said, he never gives any specific examples to show how he came to a certain conclusion about something...

What is funny though is the way that many people on the Kung-Fu Magazine forum have immediately taken this article as gospel truth and also as 'proof' that their own pre-conceived ideas of tradtional martial arts are right. In fact I must say that reading many articles in these forums has convinced me that many 'martial artists' have very little respect for other martial artists and seek to offend everyone who doesn't agree with their point of view. Every day there is a new article about how someone's style is 'better' than all the others, or the tired old 'grappling vs. traditional' argument. Grow up! We are here to learn, not to criticise. People always assume that they know everything about someone else's style when their knowledge is actually rudimentary at best. This happens most when A doesn't understand why B does so and so, and therfore starts dissing what they do. The Mongols destroyed everything in their path because they didn't understand. This is the 21st century, so there should be some intelligent debate instead of the 'my dad's tougher than your dad' rubbish...

Rant over.

Peace (whatever style you practise).

[Truewrestler]

great feeback... I'll bring your post to the attention of David Ross (lkfmdc) and he may like to respond.

[Plum Blossom]

Yeah. That would be cool, Truewrestler. The only reason I didn't reply directly to David Ross is cos I've only just registered on the Kung Fu magazine and didn't yet have permission to post replies.

Mind you, don't tell everyone about this forum. It's slow enough to load as it is!

Cheers.

[Yevin Orion]

Originally posted by Plum Blossom
Mind you, don't tell everyone about this forum. It's slow enough to load as it is!

I know

but Sifu did fix something a week or two ago so it's been running better since then. Doesn't hang on my broweser every 2 minutes like it used to

[Dan]

Oi!

Well enough forum bashing from you lot!



Previously I worked in computer networking and so I can assure you it is nothing to do with the network, but that does mean that it is most likely to do with the database. I really have no skills with databases, except I managed to set this one up somehow! I have raised a support call a while back with the software providers and with the host so one day they may get back to me with a solution. Until then I am just glad I have a 1Mb connection to help make up for it…

I have some things to say about the above essay as well, but not now as I have class to teach…

[Yevin Orion]

Re: Oi!

Originally posted by Dan
Well enough forum bashing from you lot!

Originally posted by Dan
I have some things to say about the above essay as well, but not now as I have class to teach…

Look forward to reading it Sifu.

[Dan]

About the essay.

I agree with Plum Blossom (do I know you sir?) the recent history seems more researched than the rest of the material, and it seems that a lot of material has been left out as it provides contradiction to the points he is making.

The following is based on my research and understanding, and is by no means meant to be a definitive account.

First of all, from my understanding the Great Bodhidharma did not teach any martial arts when at the Shaolin Temple, but passed on three sets of exercises; later these exercises, particularly the 18 Lohan Hands, were modified by residents of the temple to become the early Shaolin Kungfu patterns and the first Lohan Set. The persons who modified these patterns were already highly accomplished warriors and the top of Chinese society. It is no secret that the Shaolin Temple was the imperial Temple where the Emperor prayed to heaven for the future of the empire. Many of the elite of Chinese civilisation retired to the Shaolin Temple to cultivate spiritually for over a thousand years, these would have included top generals, masters in military and family/clan combat systems.

It is a common misconception that Chinese martial arts were invented at the Shaolin Temple; sometimes this misconception has Bodhidharma as the inventor of the arts. Martial Arts existed long before the Shaolin Temple in China, as did what we call Chi Kung. We must remember that Chi Kung is a relatively recent term for ‘Arts of Energy’ and that ‘Chi Kung’ was highly developed in China prior to the Shaolin Temples existence. If I remember correctly, pottery dating to 3000BC has been found with concise descriptions of the Small Universal Energy Flow, an advanced Chi Kung exercise, revealing that such arts existed long before Bodhidharma went to China. Even earlier evidence has been found showing bodies with acupuncture ‘prescriptions’ tattooed onto their bodies. Chinese Martial Arts were also highly developed before they were adopted at the Shaolin Temple.

The Shaolin Temple represented the first time in Chinese History that the Martial Arts had been institutionalized, before they were a myriad of family/clan systems, and military systems. Martial Arts training flourished at the Shaolin Temple, the Warrior monks were elite amongst the monks. Their duties included protecting the temple against local and regional hostilities. I believe there was a necessity to protect what was not only the most important temple in the empire, but also the contents of the temple. Having been myself and seen how vast it is it would have contained a lot of things that warlords would have happily pillaged at the slightest opportunity.

There are also records such as the murals on the walls of the famous Kuan Yin Hall in the northern Shaolin Temple that reveal that the practice of the Shaolin Arts was not merely a sideshow, or unimportant aspect of the life at the Shaolin Temple. I believe that the murals also show imperial patronage; court officials watching the demonstrations.

The Shaolin Arts continued to flourish and be developed in the Southern Shaolin Temple built also by imperial decree during the Ming dynasty; they wished for an imperial temple in the south as that was where they sited their capital. It was only in the later Qing dynasty that this Southern Shaolin Temple was razed to the ground, and from which our ancestors the Venerable Jiang Nan and the Venerable Chee Seen escaped. We are very fortunate to inherit the arts from such short, direct lineages, both direct from the Venerable Jiang Nan, and via the second Southern Shaolin Temple via the Venerable Chee Seen.

I also believe that as the activities of the second Southern Shaolin Temple were tied to those of the revolutionaries, who were intent on overthrowing the Qing dynasty and re-instating the previous dynasty there is a common link between ancient secret societies and the modern societies, even if such links are in name and not in aims, objectives, morals, ethics and methods. This is why a lot of the Southern Chinese Arts are associated with Triads and gangsters.

Again, please note that this is my own conclusions and not to be taken as definitive evidence, my understanding is based on my own research and includes a variety of sources (all of whom I thank, not the least my Sifu; Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit)

This brings me to the point of the essay that surprised me the most – the insinuation that Chinese Martial Artists were a class of society that was shunned by the mainstream, and they were violent, uneducated and dangerous.

This goes against all I have learnt about the Chinese ideals of the Scholar Warrior. My understanding was that it was the aim of the Chinese society at large to become a scholar warrior, educated in appropriate arts. We at the Shaolin Wahnam Institute have similar aims and have instigated our own programs to become Scholar Warriors. Recently Shaolin Wahnam Institute UK (England) had it’s first Scholar Warrior session where we discussed what this meant and appointed varios students to be involved with the various projects.

My understanding was that the ideal member of society would be train well in scholarly arts and the warrior arts, certainly to become competent in Chinese Martial Arts requires far more than brute strength and aggressiveness, and many of China’s past great warriors were also poets, painters, tacticians and fulfilled other scholarly roles in their life. Certainly today the few masters of Chinese Martial Arts I have met were not only scholar warriors, but also gentlemen; polite, well spoken and well educated.

Once again these are my opinions based on my research and should not be taken as definitive or the sole opinion of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute.

Time for training and bed methinks.

[Plum Blossom]

What's going on Dan?

Dunno if I know you or not but the guy that wrote that article is a pompous ass. There's nothing worse than a guy who like quoting lots of famous 'experts' but doesn't actually clarify his argument. But if he had done as much research as he said he has, then he could explain these so-called experts' views himself and demonstrate the evidence for such opinions instead of hiding under a mask of academia... Apparently he has a Masters and half a pHD, as he hasn't tired of telling me! Some people will not see any side of an argument apart from their own. The thing is, I have not rubbished all his claims, as he seems to think, but have merely presented an alternative viewpoint of the same 'facts'. It's like 2 people who have witnessed the same event:
The 1st witness sees a man hitting the other man over the head with a hammer.
Does this mean that the aggressor is an evil man?
Well, what the 2nd witness saw just a minute before was the victim of the hammer attack his attacker's wife and kids with the same hammer (he was hammered at the time... Boom boom)
There's a bit of Zen for you (I think so anyway...)

Hit me back, Dan (not literally...)

[cnholmes]

Plum Blossom,

I sympathise too.

It is important to have good sources of reference, IMO the best source is direct experience; after that is a 'primary' source, like the murals Sifu mentions here, which are documented evidence of someones direct experience; lastly is secondary sources - which is someone saying what they think is meant by the evidence in a set of primary sources. Very bad is where academics all refer to each others work with no 'real' evidence behind any of it. Also bad is hiding behind a title when your argument crumbles.

All these are, however, fundamentally and irretrievably flawed. Mainly because of that same problem "how do you explain the taste of mango to someone whos never tried it?". No two people will have the same direct experience, and if you don't really understand whats going on you miss a lot.

Then, if you create a primary source by describing your experience, your words might not convey the true essence and the reader will read it with pre-conceived ideas which get in the way.

From this you can see that secondary sources are always a case of 'chinese whispers', where the message is changed ever so slightly at each stage.

Finally, on all 3 counts its important to remember two things about the person relating the story.
1. Who they're telling their story to.
2. Why they're telling it.

Both of those can affect the content and tone of the information.

And of course, as Plum Blossom says, you have to have a focussed argument to tie it all up.

Its a flaw in western academia that they are selective in their evidence. It comes from having to make a bold statement at the beginning of your study, then finding evidence to prove it. No one wants to write in their thesis "OK, I'm wrong, lets go back to the beginning and start again".

Regards,
Chris.

[cnholmes]

I'm sorry, I should have added that the above is just my opinion.

Also, that my comments were general and not specifically targetting any individual.

Thanks,
Chris.

[Plum Blossom]

Fair play Chris.

I'm glad you see why I pounced on that so called academic, but his argument is so weak and he is so arrogant that I feel I have to confront him!

Like you say, there is nothing worse than someone who is never prepared to admit he might be wrong about something. The thing is, that idiot is so blind, he cannot see that I might agree with some of his findings. It's just that they have been presented as absolute truth. How can one know the absolute truth about anything, let alone events that occurred hundreds of years ago?

[Yevin Orion]

Originally posted by Plum Blossom
Like you say, there is nothing worse than someone who is never prepared to admit he might be wrong about something.

I totally agree with you. Just a look at his responses to people's feedback can show you how close-minded he is about the opinions he's formed.



On a completely unrelated note: Which part of Bristol are you from? I love Bristol I go there every 2 weeks or so to visit.

[cnholmes]

Plum Blossom,

Easy, there. Don't get yourself into trouble. Also, don't let it get to you. Chill

You're right about 'absolute truth'. Look at any court of law - they can't provide the absolute truth about something that happened a few months ago, with witnesses and phorensic evidence at hand. How can you get the absolute truth about something as big as a social and military shift of hundreds of years ago with most of the people alive at the time long since passed away and with only scant documentation. Even if you give one case and prove it beyond all doubt, that doesn't mean that everybody in every case was exactly like that. Even more so in the days before our mass media.

Look at the recent war in Iraq - there was loads of discussion about whether the reporting gave an accurate picture, despite having on the spot reporters with the latest infotechnology.

Chris.