Tweet
The biggest misconception all of you have is that you use the word 'kung-fu'
I have never, EVER heard a practitioner of Chinese martial arts consider his art to be 'kung-fu"
SECOND misconception is that so-called 'kung-fu' still exists. It is very well known that the communist government during the cultural revolution circa 1960's was very successful in supressing traditional culture. Historically for the last few hundred years after the Manchurians established the Ching dynasty, the way of traditional chinese martial arts was already used more as a revolutionary and anti-government measure.
What is truly called "kung-fu" already started declining many hundreds of years ago, this is why there are so few people today who actually practice authentic chinese martial arts
I'll dispell some more random facts:
SWORDS.
What you think as a "Chinese broadsword" is not actually historically authentic. The Manchurians were the ones who used this blade design for their infantry. If you look at swords from the Han Dynasty up to Ming, they very closely resemble European swords. Asian people wore armore just like European people. Asian people used heavy bladed weapons just like Europeans.
What you think as the "gim" or "straightsword" is also full of misconceptions. People watch kung-fu movies and learn that the sword is flexible so it can "avoid the ribs and puncture the heart" or some crazy shit like that. First off, historical battlefield swords were as I mentioned above: heavy, large. The Gim was a weapon for the nobility. There were indeed skillsets developed for it. Historically there are even "Chinese Bastard swords" like the kind Mel Gibson used in Braveheart, which were 2-handed. The Gim was not a main battlefield weapon. The sword was stiff, not flexible. Like the Japanese Samurai, the Chinese used bows and spears as their main weapons. Swords were considered side arms just like a pistol is to a soldier today, except the Chinese did not attach as much significance to their blades as the Japanese did.
There is also a misconception that chinese weapons were crap compared to the "almighty Japanese katana". Realize that the Japanese learned swordsmithing from the Chinese. The Chinese had knowledge of differential tempering and advanced forging very early on. Today, when sword magazines review Japanese blades they are often put to the "cowbone test" where the femur of a cow is struck with the blade. This grueling strike chips most of even traditionally forged katanas. No sword can cut through solid granite. Stone is harder than steel, and that's that.
Now especially to the people who are always talking down, you seem to think about Chinese martial arts the way you see them in movies. Have you ever actually researched it? When I was in Taiwan I had the opportunity to visit Ching-Hua University and looked up pHD dissertations written on military science, many of which concerned chinese martial arts. Even in America, if you are in college you can go to the humanities library and search for dissertations in social sciences or asian studies on that topic. I think you will find it an educational experience. Please do not pass judgement.
The thing which disturbs me the most is this so-called "reality based defense" attack to chinese Martial arts.
For God's sake, the world isn't even a tiny fraction of how violent it used to be. Just think, has MMA ever proven itself when the Clan of Shamrock goes to war against the Clan of Gracie? Hell no, we don't mass kill eachother no more or die for honor in this day and age. Basically, I stand besides the effectiveness of traditional martial arts simply because hundreds of years ago, people ran around all day with swords and other sharp crap in a lawless land where only the strong survived, and in such a cruel ancient world there NO WAY chinese martial arts would have survived if they were not effective in actually KILLING PEOPLE. That's just common sense right there.
One of the thesis papers I read in Chinese came to the conclusion that martial arts is oxymoronic. On one hand, it does not exist. On the other hand, it is stronger than ever. The paper argued that martial arts existed as a socio-cultural entity subservient to the needs of the society they were placed in. As such, it does not exist in its traditional form just as universities which used to be bastons of National culture exist more as vocational training today. However, martial arts had changed and adapted. Today it is FAR more useful to encourage the self-confidence and esteem of a shy boy, or give health to a sickly child, than it is even in self-defense. Those who stubbornly go against this 'tide' of change cannot hope to preserve the past in the midst of cultural diffusion.
I have never, EVER heard a practitioner of Chinese martial arts consider his art to be 'kung-fu"
SECOND misconception is that so-called 'kung-fu' still exists. It is very well known that the communist government during the cultural revolution circa 1960's was very successful in supressing traditional culture. Historically for the last few hundred years after the Manchurians established the Ching dynasty, the way of traditional chinese martial arts was already used more as a revolutionary and anti-government measure.
What is truly called "kung-fu" already started declining many hundreds of years ago, this is why there are so few people today who actually practice authentic chinese martial arts
I'll dispell some more random facts:
SWORDS.
What you think as a "Chinese broadsword" is not actually historically authentic. The Manchurians were the ones who used this blade design for their infantry. If you look at swords from the Han Dynasty up to Ming, they very closely resemble European swords. Asian people wore armore just like European people. Asian people used heavy bladed weapons just like Europeans.
What you think as the "gim" or "straightsword" is also full of misconceptions. People watch kung-fu movies and learn that the sword is flexible so it can "avoid the ribs and puncture the heart" or some crazy shit like that. First off, historical battlefield swords were as I mentioned above: heavy, large. The Gim was a weapon for the nobility. There were indeed skillsets developed for it. Historically there are even "Chinese Bastard swords" like the kind Mel Gibson used in Braveheart, which were 2-handed. The Gim was not a main battlefield weapon. The sword was stiff, not flexible. Like the Japanese Samurai, the Chinese used bows and spears as their main weapons. Swords were considered side arms just like a pistol is to a soldier today, except the Chinese did not attach as much significance to their blades as the Japanese did.
There is also a misconception that chinese weapons were crap compared to the "almighty Japanese katana". Realize that the Japanese learned swordsmithing from the Chinese. The Chinese had knowledge of differential tempering and advanced forging very early on. Today, when sword magazines review Japanese blades they are often put to the "cowbone test" where the femur of a cow is struck with the blade. This grueling strike chips most of even traditionally forged katanas. No sword can cut through solid granite. Stone is harder than steel, and that's that.
Now especially to the people who are always talking down, you seem to think about Chinese martial arts the way you see them in movies. Have you ever actually researched it? When I was in Taiwan I had the opportunity to visit Ching-Hua University and looked up pHD dissertations written on military science, many of which concerned chinese martial arts. Even in America, if you are in college you can go to the humanities library and search for dissertations in social sciences or asian studies on that topic. I think you will find it an educational experience. Please do not pass judgement.
The thing which disturbs me the most is this so-called "reality based defense" attack to chinese Martial arts.
For God's sake, the world isn't even a tiny fraction of how violent it used to be. Just think, has MMA ever proven itself when the Clan of Shamrock goes to war against the Clan of Gracie? Hell no, we don't mass kill eachother no more or die for honor in this day and age. Basically, I stand besides the effectiveness of traditional martial arts simply because hundreds of years ago, people ran around all day with swords and other sharp crap in a lawless land where only the strong survived, and in such a cruel ancient world there NO WAY chinese martial arts would have survived if they were not effective in actually KILLING PEOPLE. That's just common sense right there.
One of the thesis papers I read in Chinese came to the conclusion that martial arts is oxymoronic. On one hand, it does not exist. On the other hand, it is stronger than ever. The paper argued that martial arts existed as a socio-cultural entity subservient to the needs of the society they were placed in. As such, it does not exist in its traditional form just as universities which used to be bastons of National culture exist more as vocational training today. However, martial arts had changed and adapted. Today it is FAR more useful to encourage the self-confidence and esteem of a shy boy, or give health to a sickly child, than it is even in self-defense. Those who stubbornly go against this 'tide' of change cannot hope to preserve the past in the midst of cultural diffusion.
Comment