Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[BlueTravesty]

IMO the legends and mythology in TCMA history make it more fun. I suspect they are what drew most of us to TCMA in the first place. I think the legends should inspire you to train harder. Duh, you're not going to gain super natural powers, but at least it's something cool to think about while you're training your ass off. I might never be able to swim with my pecs, but I might end up being one tough bent dude from trying.

Which is fine as far as it goes. Those myths and legends are colorful folk tales that excite the imagination, and are not harmful if they are taken with a grain of salt by people in this day and age. For example, the supposed founder of the style I was practicing (in one version of the history) was one Yen Qing, who just happened to also be a prominent character in the novel "The Water Margin." I highly doubt this. However, the account of this character using "Mizong Stepping" to confuse his enemies and cover his tracks in the snow engages the imagination.

The problem occurs when people try to use the preponderance of myths and legends as justification for creating entirely new myths and legends that amount to outright falsehoods. Such as "We do the real 'combat' versions of CMA forms. Frog button-uniforms are just movie props. All kung fu today, even from Taiwan and Hong Kong is just performance art. The fact that Shaolin Monks today do Modern Wushu totally invalidates all those traditional forms they practice." etc.

FWIW, it seems that more than a few SD'ers take the story of the style's founding with a grain of salt, and stick with the style not because of some delusion of it being the last "real shaolin" but because they like the class. Which is awesome. Everyone should find a class they like and stick with it. If they enjoy it, and it works for them, super. The ones who believe in the stories, and believe their Mantis looks different from say, Seven Star Praying Mantis because their Mantis is more "combative" well, they deserve whatever flack they get. (combative forms... tee-hee.)

Also, it would be one thing for me to claim that my style's founder could walk using only his buttocks. It would be an idiotic fallcy for me to claim to be able to do this myself though, and never be inclined to prove it. I would be a liar if I were to teach a class and tell my students this.

"Yeah, I can totally do a 8-minute mile by walking on my glutes. But I don't feel like it today. Practice hard, kids."

[BM2]

Here's how much lineage matters:

My grandfather traced my family tree through our nation's libraries because he wanted to see if we were "Mayflower material" (yeah, he's like that ), and got our family tree back to medieval times. He didn't examine it, but I interpreted it for him. Three of my ancestors are the names of Shakespeare plays, and five of them occur as characters in his plays, and I'm related to both Charlemagne and the Plantagenets, who ruled France and England for several centuries. You remember the villain from Braveheart, Edward I? Yup, my greatX20 grandaddy....LOL.....

Now, I'm a full-time dockworker, part-time communications officer, and a grad-student 1/2 done with his coursework, studying Shaolin-Do.

Lineages don't mean d1ck.

I wouldn't place too much accuracy on that. My Aunt has been researching since the late sixties and has found many errors after verifing what she was believed oringinally to be correct. Also 5% of each generation doesn't have the father they think they do. Not from adultry really, the mother would take the unmarried daughter's child to raise as her own. I read that the marriage and first born of even the Purtians would place many premature births for the first borns. People have always been people. Sorta like what happened here when our then Lt. Governor knocked up his wife before the wedding and they played it that the +8lb baby came early Yeah right.
There are many companies doing DNA on family names and can tell about what generation you are apart by the difference in change.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Isn't that the point I was just trying to make? Royalty-->Runt in short generational spans?

[Shaolindynasty]

but if your teacher sucks chances are you will suck also.

Lineage does mean something

[BM2]

Isn't that the point I was just trying to make? Royalty-->Runt in short generational spans?

No, I'm saying that odds are you're not of royal blood. If you think you are, you could do the DNA testing and be verified. My Aunt told me that there are many errors in lineage. When she researched and sent in for inclusion to the relatives of George Washington family, after looking at the pedigree, they too thought it was correct and my Aunt only found the mistake when tracing further. We were not descended from George Washington's maternal great grandfather after all. Along the line someone had the wrong John Ball in the same county,in the same year in Virgina. Many people think they are related to famous people or assume that they are descended from a Knight. Those family coat of arms are most likely not yours either unless you can find a direct line from a Knight with that surname.

[Shaolin Wookie]

That was my point....that lineages aren't trustworthy in themselves.

He spent 5 years researching it, so it's accurate to a point. Not that it matters much. My ancestors on both sides of the family kept jumping between Ireland/Scotland and the US. They did it like 7-8 times. Nobody went back to either Ireland or Scotland these last two generations. I might have to move there, just for the sake of tradition. It sucks...I was like one generation away from havin' a sweet accent.

[SDJerry]

From my understanding of chinese culture... lineage is very important. If you can't trace back where you came from then you do not exist. This differs from our culture here in the states so I can see why it's hard for people to really understand the impact of it. That can be said for a lot of subjects when comparing different cultures.

[DPL]

The problem occurs when people try to use the preponderance of myths and legends as justification for creating entirely new myths and legends that amount to outright falsehoods.

Like, say, our government does regularly? Or most organized religions? Or the history you learned to be true? This is a human problem, not an SD problem, except in the sense that SD is a subset of humanity.

Folks on this board like to rely on written history as a source of truth, theoretically knowing full-well that written truth changes over time, just like word-of-mouth truth changes with the mood and memory of the teller.

I've watched the teaching of hot-button issues like the Civil War and Hitler change and modify during my relatively short lifetime. Not because new discoveries were made, but because the folks developing the curriculum don't like teaching certain things.

H3ll, Will Smith just got flame-broiled by the media for having the nerve to say that Hitler didn't wake up in the morning and say 'I'm gonna be evil today.' The point is a valid one, but it's completely unacceptable now to picture Hitler as human, or having good intentions, even though that's the smartest way to teach about the man because it shows we all have the potential to be monsters, and that good intentions can lead to horrible crimes.

Just think what a civilization 1000 years from now would think of the causes of the Civil War if the only record they had of the event is an intentionally politically correct high school history book written in the last few years, versus what they would think if they only had access to the same type of book written 30 years ago. It would be a starkly different view of the causes leading up to the same event, as well as a starkly different view of Abraham Lincoln.

The concept of pure historical truth is one of the most ridiculous conceits a human being could ever imagine, because our experiences, beliefs and cultures so thoroughly tint our perceptions. The SD folks believe what they do and the anti-SDers believe something different. Each has reasons for their beliefs the other side will not accept.

This is the part where the really, really slow people will say 'well that's because my reasons are good ones and yours are stupid', 'I have documentation,' etc., which misses the entire freaking point.

History is littered with opposing groups of people who can't for the life of them understand how the other side could be so stupidly close-minded or blind to 'obvious' truths.

Which is also why this thread will likely go on forever. You have two groups of people who enjoy and believe in what they do, completely convinced that the other group can't see the light.

Who cares which light is the 'real' light, or the better light, or if it's a lamp or a fire or a flashlight, or which light has an owner's manual endorsed by the Chinese manufacturer?

It serves as a light in the darkness for people who need it and that's all that should matter.

Happy New Year.

[BlueTravesty]

Like, say, our government does regularly? Or most organized religions? Or the history you learned to be true? This is a human problem, not an SD problem, except in the sense that SD is a subset of humanity.

Folks on this board like to rely on written history as a source of truth, theoretically knowing full-well that written truth changes over time, just like word-of-mouth truth changes with the mood and memory of the teller.

Interesting view, though I fail to see why you quoted my post to make it, as it doesn't have much relevance to the central point I was trying to make.

I could also try to deflect the argument by saying "I take it you are a supporter of organized religion and other institutions since you use their actions to justify whatever the heck it is you're talking about." And I would have a valid point in doing so. However, rather than taking a small snippet of your post and rebutting that while ignoring the rest of it, I'll actually, you know, rebut your post. Ain't I nice?

I've watched the teaching of hot-button issues like the Civil War and Hitler change and modify during my relatively short lifetime. Not because new discoveries were made, but because the folks developing the curriculum don't like teaching certain things.

H3ll, Will Smith just got flame-broiled by the media for having the nerve to say that Hitler didn't wake up in the morning and say 'I'm gonna be evil today.' The point is a valid one, but it's completely unacceptable now to picture Hitler as human, or having good intentions, even though that's the smartest way to teach about the man because it shows we all have the potential to be monsters, and that good intentions can lead to horrible crimes.

Given your experience in this matter, I can understand where you're coming from. When I was a high-schooler, we were taught in a more open manner, and I recall the teaching of Hitler still portrayed him as a muderous megalomaniac, didn't just stop there, and showed his supposed reasons. We were taught that it was important to realize that there are people out there who use socio-political circumstances in order to justify horrible things, like people strapping bombs to their chests, because they don't like a certain ethnicity in a country hundreds of miles away. Perhaps this is not an issue with written history, as it is with individual and isolated elements of the educational system? (interesting sidebar, but still has zero relevance to the post you quoted.)

Just think what a civilization 1000 years from now would think of the causes of the Civil War if the only record they had of the event is an intentionally politically correct high school history book written in the last few years, versus what they would think if they only had access to the same type of book written 30 years ago. It would be a starkly different view of the causes leading up to the same event, as well as a starkly different view of Abraham Lincoln.

Well, we already have this. You know "Abraham Lincoln singhandedly started the Civil War so he could set the slaves free!" This is the version I was taught until about, oh, 6th grade. Gradually in each year of school, layers of the illusion were removed. By High School, I eventually learned that the causes of the Civil War were rich and complex. Not all the Union were the good guys, and not all of the Confederacy were bad guys. Again, I'm sorry to hear of your particular bad experience, but I cannot say that my experience was similar.

Was there another person's post you meant to quote for this particular argument?

The concept of pure historical truth is one of the most ridiculous conceits a human being could ever imagine, because our experiences, beliefs and cultures so thoroughly tint our perceptions. The SD folks believe what they do and the anti-SDers believe something different. Each has reasons for their beliefs the other side will not accept.

I can see where you're coming from here, as well. I consider myself at least partially existentialist, and while I do have beliefs in certain things, I do have a distinct hatred for just about every form of dogmatism out there. This includes anti-dogmatic dogmatism. As well as Anti-Dogmatic-Anti-Dogmatism.

Since you brought up the point about the lack of pure historical truth (though I'm still not sure exactly what it was in response to, if anything.) I'll be happy to use that to make a point. Yes, we know the reasons behind the Civil War aren't as cut and dry as grade-school classrooms make them out to be, and it seems we're always changing in our editoralizing of certain historical events. Trying to insert modern perspectives into situations we'll never understand.

We may learn more about motives, or rather, try to use modern culture and ideas to interpolate, however, The Confederacy still led an attack on Fort Sumter. Perhaps we'll learn this didn't start the war someday. Maybe it was a plot by the decendants of Ghengis Khan to abolish slavery to ensure the eventual advent of Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches. However, the Confederacy still attacked Fort Sumter in 1861 A.D. or C.E. or whatever the heck you want to call it.

This is the part where the really, really slow people will say 'well that's because my reasons are good ones and yours are stupid', 'I have documentation,' etc., which misses the entire freaking point.

Sure, which is kind of like someone railing against the concept of historical dogmatism in a highly dogmatic fashion because they feel their vaguely-explained philosophical notions justify it. Good thing you're not doing that.

History is littered with opposing groups of people who can't for the life of them understand how the other side could be so stupidly close-minded or blind to 'obvious' truths.

Which is also why this thread will likely go on forever. You have two groups of people who enjoy and believe in what they do, completely convinced that the other group can't see the light.

Who cares which light is the 'real' light, or the better light, or if it's a lamp or a fire or a flashlight, or which light has an owner's manual endorsed by the Chinese manufacturer?

It serves as a light in the darkness for people who need it and that's all that should matter.

Happy New Year.

Good point, and one I have espoused many times of this forum. Including in the post you quoted. Pehaps I erred in taking this as a rebuttal? Otherwise, I would be led to believe that historical subjectivity and the lack of absolute truths in this world somehow connote to why it's ok to tell a student who asks why SD tiger-crane looks different from Hung Gar's "Just ignore those Hung Gar guys, they're just doing Hong Kong dance-fu. We're doing the REAL SHAOLIN Tiger-Crane."

None of this seems to justify why it's ok to use inflammatory statements to get peoples' dander up and then say "Well, it's all relative." (Such as "The reason our forms look different is because you just do dancey-ballet-fu." Or "MY MASTER IS BETTER AT CHEN TAICHI THAN ANYONE IN CHEN VILLAGE!" or that nonsense about the frog-button uniform just being a movie prop.) Relativism does not use superlatives in the context of "better or worse." But I guess it's just all relative, huh?

Happy New Year to you too. Stay safe, lots of horrible drivers on the road tonight.

[DPL]

Interesting view, though I fail to see why you quoted my post to make it, as it doesn't have much relevance to the central point I was trying to make.

Sorry, guess I should've explained more clearly why your observation about 'outright falsehoods' in SD would be a perfect jumping board into a discussion about truth. In retrospect it's much more apparent to me that the connection between falsehood and truth would be a difficult one to make. My sincerest apologies.

The point is, what is the real truth, and more importantly, what does it ultimately matter as long as the folks are deriving value from what they're doing. Your post excused only those who admit or tolerate your viewpoint that SD's stories are likely full of crap. In your paraphrased words, anyone believing the SD stories deserves what pain and verbal abuse they get. My post is pointing out, in an admittedly roundabout way, that they should be excused and allowed to practice what they believe without believing your way, because determining 'real truth' is such a fruitless and ultimately prejudiced exercise.

It's relevant to your entire post.

I could also try to deflect the argument by saying "I take it you are a supporter of organized religion and other institutions since you use their actions to justify whatever the heck it is you're talking about." And I would have a valid point in doing so. However, rather than taking a small snippet of your post and rebutting that while ignoring the rest of it, I'll actually, you know, rebut your post. Ain't I nice?

Yes, your generosity is truly overwhelming. Your reading comprehension less so, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

The point, again, was that truth is a near-irrelevant concept in situations like this. I could care less about which version of truth is taught or handed down by the government, organized religion, etc. as long as there's a general recognition that it can never be more than a partial truth, and an understanding of what that actually implies about just nearly everything you believe.

Given your experience in this matter, I can understand where you're coming from. When I was a high-schooler, we were taught in a more open manner, and I recall the teaching of Hitler still portrayed him as a muderous megalomaniac, didn't just stop there, and showed his supposed reasons. We were taught that it was important to realize that there are people out there who use socio-political circumstances in order to justify horrible things, like people strapping bombs to their chests, because they don't like a certain ethnicity in a country hundreds of miles away. Perhaps this is not an issue with written history, as it is with individual and isolated elements of the educational system? (interesting sidebar, but still has zero relevance to the post you quoted.)

Which ultimately supports my point - you talk about your experience in this matter, I talk about mine. You reach one potential conclusion, I reach another. If you really want to argue the sources and breadth of impact of educational curriculum decisions we can do that, but it's a meta-argument to the actual point.

Well, we already have this. You know "Abraham Lincoln singhandedly started the Civil War so he could set the slaves free!" This is the version I was taught until about, oh, 6th grade. Gradually in each year of school, layers of the illusion were removed. By High School, I eventually learned that the causes of the Civil War were rich and complex. Not all the Union were the good guys, and not all of the Confederacy were bad guys. Again, I'm sorry to hear of your particular bad experience, but I cannot say that my experience was similar.

Where did I talk about 'my bad experience'? I pointed out a difference in the way the curriculum was taught years ago and the way it's taught today. This is actually a fairly commonly-held observation and not one I'm drawing on my specific experience for, although I do recall that the point was made to me from the first time I learned about the Civil War that it wasn't started because of slavery. Your point above supports my point that this is not the way it's universally taught, which, yet again, supports the argument against any kind of real truth.

Was there another person's post you meant to quote for this particular argument?

Nope - I was still working my way right up to the point that clearly rebuts your post. Keep trying, though - your clever banter is amusing and makes me smile.

I can see where you're coming from here, as well. I consider myself at least partially existentialist, and while I do have beliefs in certain things, I do have a distinct hatred for just about every form of dogmatism out there. This includes anti-dogmatic dogmatism. As well as Anti-Dogmatic-Anti-Dogmatism.

Good for you. It makes me feel good that not only do you have beliefs and hatreds, but you have beliefs and hatreds that you can wittily apply to your off-target response to my post.

Since you brought up the point about the lack of pure historical truth (though I'm still not sure exactly what it was in response to, if anything.) I'll be happy to use that to make a point. Yes, we know the reasons behind the Civil War aren't as cut and dry as grade-school classrooms make them out to be, and it seems we're always changing in our editoralizing of certain historical events. Trying to insert modern perspectives into situations we'll never understand.

We may learn more about motives, or rather, try to use modern culture and ideas to interpolate, however, The Confederacy still led an attack on Fort Sumter. Perhaps we'll learn this didn't start the war someday. Maybe it was a plot by the decendants of Ghengis Khan to abolish slavery to ensure the eventual advent of Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches. However, the Confederacy still attacked Fort Sumter in 1861 A.D. or C.E. or whatever the heck you want to call it.

Yes, we certainly know that. We also know that the attack was initiated after about four-five months of Confederate requests that the occupying Union army peacefully surrender and vacate the fort which they'd occupied AFTER South Carolina legally seceded from the Union. And that the Union forces steadfastly refused to vacate the fort. The fort they were occupying in non-US territory, according to the laws of the time. But hey, what does that matter, right?

Wow, your generosity really does know no bounds. Thank you for that perfect example of my point. You're the best. Really, you are. No, no - I mean it. You're the best.

Sure, which is kind of like someone railing against the concept of historical dogmatism in a highly dogmatic fashion because they feel their vaguely-explained philosophical notions justify it. Good thing you're not doing that.

Excellent shot at the straw man. Blasted one of his arms right off. In addition to being uncommonly generous, you're also an excellent shot!

Good point, and one I have espoused many times of this forum. Including in the post you quoted.

Actually, you said something along the lines of it's okay for the SD folks who take the SD history with a grain of salt to enjoy SD, but anyone who believes all the SD propaganda deserves what they get. I'm obviously paraphrasing, but once again, my point rebuts yours exactly. As long as they believe YOUR truth, it's okay. If they choose to believe their own ideas that are different than yours, well then, they deserve any pain inflicted on them.

Pehaps I erred in taking this as a rebuttal? Otherwise, I would be led to believe that historical subjectivity and the lack of absolute truths in this world somehow connote to why it's ok to tell a student who asks why SD tiger-crane looks different from Hung Gar's "Just ignore those Hung Gar guys, they're just doing Hong Kong dance-fu. We're doing the REAL SHAOLIN Tiger-Crane."

None of this seems to justify why it's ok to use inflammatory statements to get peoples' dander up and then say "Well, it's all relative." (Such as "The reason our forms look different is because you just do dancey-ballet-fu." Or "MY MASTER IS BETTER AT CHEN TAICHI THAN ANYONE IN CHEN VILLAGE!" or that nonsense about the frog-button uniform just being a movie prop.)

Turn that mirror on yourself, straw-killer. Read some random selection of this specific thread and count the number of times an SD person has used inflammatory statements as opposed to one of the non-SD folks. At the very least, I'm betting it's about even. My recollection of reading this thread and related ones for the past 7-8 years has been that generally SD folks respond to attacks as opposed to the opposite, but of course that's just my perspective.

And you'll note, by the way, that at no point have I declared my beliefs in the SD 'mythology' or any other 'mythology', so please do me the respect of not assuming I believe things I haven't claimed. I'm simply observing and commenting.

Relativism does not use superlatives in the context of "better or worse." But I guess it's just all relative, huh?

Nicely put.

Happy New Year to you too. Stay safe, lots of horrible drivers on the road tonight.

Your turn. Looking forward to your response.

[Judge Pen]

Nice ping-pong match DPL and BlueTravesty have going one here.

Question: how many different versions of Tiger-Crane are out there (aside from SD's)?

[kwaichang]

I know of 5 myself also for every practioner there is a "new" style of Tiger Crane. That said , some of you remind me of a kid I met playing a Kung Fu Video game. He felt and said that he thought he could do Kung Fu Martial Arts because he was good at the game. he was mistaken of course. KC

[B-Rad]

Question: how many different versions of Tiger-Crane are out there (aside from SD's)?

Quite a few, though I was thinking Shaolin-Do's was supposed to be the "by the book" version. At least an SDer had told me there's was pretty much identical to the book he had. I keep seeing it pop up in smaller styles out of the mainland other than Hung Gar and it's branches. Like a small Tian Gang Quan vcd series from a 90+yo master on plumpub. It's filtered into numerous "villiage" or "folk" styles.

[BlueTravesty]

Sorry, guess I should've explained more clearly why your observation about 'outright falsehoods' in SD would be a perfect jumping board into a discussion about truth. In retrospect it's much more apparent to me that the connection between falsehood and truth would be a difficult one to make. My sincerest apologies.

Ok, NOW I see where you're coming from. While truth can be subjective, the sorts of views espoused by SD websites, such as the views I mentioned in previous post, are devoid of any OBJECTIVE truth. Unless one believes NOTHING is absolutely or objectively true, which would be something of a paradox. If nothing is absolutely true, that means that the statement that nothing is absolutely true is not absolutely true. Which means some things are absolutely true. I think I need an aspirin.

The point is, what is the real truth, and more importantly, what does it ultimately matter as long as the folks are deriving value from what they're doing. Your post excused only those who admit or tolerate your viewpoint that SD's stories are likely full of crap. In your paraphrased words, anyone believing the SD stories deserves what pain and verbal abuse they get. My post is pointing out, in an admittedly roundabout way, that they should be excused and allowed to practice what they believe without believing your way, because determining 'real truth' is such a fruitless and ultimately prejudiced exercise.

It's relevant to your entire post.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that they somehow weren't allowed to practice or believe what they wish. But they shouldn't be excused for making inflammatory statements and having to go through the "pain" of backing them up.

As you said, this problem is not limited to SD.

For example, in the book Nei Jia Quan (which I have to get back- I let a friend borrow it.) One of the "masters" in there is convinced that Chen-style Tai Chi is a government fake and that Yang Style is a true derivative of what was passed down by Zhang San Feng. The guy teaches for free, and may be great at Tai Chi. perhaps he was taught all this by his master- however, that does not change the fact that Tai Chi started in Chen Village and he is accusing them of propagating a lie. If he wants to believe that Yang style is the best style, super duper. If he wants to believe that Zhang San Feng created Tai Chi, fine. It's when he uses those beliefs to tear others down that, well, kinda gets my dander up.

Now I will admit that the very first post I made in this series did seem to target those who believe in the SD history- that has more to do however, with those who believe its entirety. Including all those nice bits about all currently taught CMA from China being fake, the Shaolin Monks being wushu imposters, etc. that probably started out as "cornered-animal" style counters to perfectly valid points put forth by the rest of the CMA community.

If one believes the stuff about Su Kong Tai Djin, etc etc. That's perfectly fine. It's when they believe the stuff that typically comes with it- the current people at Shaolin are just wushu fakes, those frog-button uniforms are just props from kung fu movies, any kung fu that stemmed from Mainland China, even the stuff from masters who fled the Cultural Revolution, is a bunch of dancey performance art, SD forms look different from the forms in other styles because they're the real COMBAT FORMS, etc. that I have no reservations in countering their arguments and calling their integrity and/or their analytical abilities into question. Whether it's true for them because they believe it because all truth is relative is irrelevant when someone takes it out of their own head and puts it in someone else's face.

Instead, the SD "extremists" (for lack of a better word) will often just say "well you don't know for sure and nothing is really set in stone as far as CMA history goes." One can't just decide to become a relativist because the current debate climate is less than favorable.

Yes, your generosity is truly overwhelming. Your reading comprehension less so, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

The point, again, was that truth is a near-irrelevant concept in situations like this. I could care less about which version of truth is taught or handed down by the government, organized religion, etc. as long as there's a general recognition that it can never be more than a partial truth, and an understanding of what that actually implies about just nearly everything you believe.

But there are certain truths. The Masters who fled the Cultrual Revolution had NO WAY of coming into contact with the Modern Wushu curriculum. It didn't happen. That is truth. If one is going to say their stuff is performance arts, one must present technical facts for why this is so.

All truth is partial, in and of itself. However, I believe there are truths that make this philosophical disclaimer impractical. Water is wet. Yes, when frozen so cold that pressure does not melt it, it is dry. This loophole, from a pragmatic standpoint, can be ignored.

Truth can never be more than partial, but it has to still have SOME truth to it. Not all things are absolutely true, but not all things are relative. there ARE absolute truths.

IF someone were to argue that the other styles claiming to teach Shaolin are false, that would be absolutely untrue. There is the Shaolin Temple. Whatever Martial Arts are taught there are Shaolin Martial Arts by virtue of the fact that they're taught there. The fact that they mix modern wushu with traditional Kung Fu does not and cannot negate this. I don't say this because I feel you take this position, but to point out that there ARE claims made by some of those within SD (mostly through the websites- their face for the general public) that are out and out false

[BlueTravesty]

Which ultimately supports my point - you talk about your experience in this matter, I talk about mine. You reach one potential conclusion, I reach another. If you really want to argue the sources and breadth of impact of educational curriculum decisions we can do that, but it's a meta-argument to the actual point.

Great. But nowhere did I ever say that your experience was invalid, or that you must be wrong because I was taught differently. I don't operate that way. If you said that your conclusion the way things are, period, or that my experience was invalid, then you would be absolutely wrong. That would not be relative.

Where did I talk about 'my bad experience'? I pointed out a difference in the way the curriculum was taught years ago and the way it's taught today. This is actually a fairly commonly-held observation and not one I'm drawing on my specific experience for, although I do recall that the point was made to me from the first time I learned about the Civil War that it wasn't started because of slavery. Your point above supports my point that this is not the way it's universally taught, which, yet again, supports the argument against any kind of real truth.

I don't know that it supports the argument against ANY kind of real truth. Can we agree that there was an American Civil War, and that the bang-bang-shooty-shooting started in 1861?

Can we agree that the fact that Shaolin Monks do Wushu for public performance tours does not negate their practice of Traditional Songshan Shaolin Forms (such as HongQuan, Luohan, etc.) Can we agree that those forms are Shaolin by virtue of the fact that they are taught and endorsed by the Shaolin Temple, and among the practitioners there are a few, full-fledged monks?

Nope - I was still working my way right up to the point that clearly rebuts your post. Keep trying, though - your clever banter is amusing and makes me smile.

ok, you "clearly" rebutted one portion of what you thought my post meant. I'll admit that I posted that post assuming the context of my previously stated opinion, which I cannot realistically just assume someone will read, especially on a thread this big. That was my bad.

What I feel is wrong is when someone uses that belief to construct other unnecessary beliefs, such as "all those other styles are false" and that core point went unaddressed.

Good for you. It makes me feel good that not only do you have beliefs and hatreds, but you have beliefs and hatreds that you can wittily apply to your off-target response to my post.

And it makes me feel good that not only do you have a sense of sarcasm, but you have a sense of sarcasm that you can wittily apply to my off-target response to your off-target response to my original post.

Yes, we certainly know that. We also know that the attack was initiated after about four-five months of Confederate requests that the occupying Union army peacefully surrender and vacate the fort which they'd occupied AFTER South Carolina legally seceded from the Union. And that the Union forces steadfastly refused to vacate the fort. The fort they were occupying in non-US territory, according to the laws of the time. But hey, what does that matter, right?

Well, since my use of that point was to clarify the fact that while we may not know everything about individual historical events, there are certain facets that we can know with certainty (Dates, times, etc.,) indeed, what difference does that all make? At no time did I make any point that would put myself in ideological opposition to this.

Excellent shot at the straw man. Blasted one of his arms right off. In addition to being uncommonly generous, you're also an excellent shot!

Indeed, however, the straw man I was rooting for has dropped his gun, and it looks like he has decided to joust with the one you've been railing against. Arguments over misinterpretations of others' posts can do that (yes, that applies to both of us.)

Actually, you said something along the lines of it's okay for the SD folks who take the SD history with a grain of salt to enjoy SD, but anyone who believes all the SD propaganda deserves what they get. I'm obviously paraphrasing, but once again, my point rebuts yours exactly. As long as they believe YOUR truth, it's okay. If they choose to believe their own ideas that are different than yours, well then, they deserve any pain inflicted on them.

To paraphrase my position
"The SD hardliners who respond to valid questions about their lineage with attacks on the lineages of others rather than actually defending their positions or, failing that, doing the research necessary to do so are jerks and deserve any 'pain' inflicted on them."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as you said, this is not an SD problem, but a human one. The CLF and Wing Chun guys who inundate the Southern Board with lineage-based flame wars are a good example of this.

If an SD'er buys into the party line, fine. But when presented with a valid question (as opposed to a personal attack- THERE IS a difference) they can either A) Admit that they believe but they don't know for sure. or B) do some research to try to corroborate their position, or, failing that, admit there are some aspects of the SD history that may be less than accurate. I don't think any but mkriii are asking for a full-on recant.

Turn that mirror on yourself, straw-killer. Read some random selection of this specific thread and count the number of times an SD person has used inflammatory statements as opposed to one of the non-SD folks. At the very least, I'm betting it's about even. My recollection of reading this thread and related ones for the past 7-8 years has been that generally SD folks respond to attacks as opposed to the opposite, but of course that's just my perspective.

Sure, but not till my straw man can use that mirror to deflect your straw man's lance. There's plenty of both going on. For every "OMG! SIN THE' IS A LIAR YOU DO FAKE KUNG FU!" (who deserves whatever flack THEY get.) there's a poster who asks a valid question about SD's position on something, which is TAKEN as an attack, and the response is invariably some vitriolic tripe that amounts to "GIS LOOK EXACTLY LIKE MONK ROBES, YOUR UNIFORMS ARE MOVIE PROPS!" or "JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T DO COMMIE WUSHU LIKE YOU DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT CMA!" or "SD IS OBVIOUSLY REAL SHAOLIN. YOU'RE SO BLINDED BY YOUR OWN STYLE THAT YOU JUST CAN'T SEE IT!" in lieu of making arguments, which usually feature bothersome things like making points, counter-arguments, and the use of commonly-agreed-upon standards of sentence structure. (I'll note my own inadequacy in this department- I depend far too much on run-on sentences)

And you'll note, by the way, that at no point have I declared my beliefs in the SD 'mythology' or any other 'mythology', so please do me the respect of not assuming I believe things I haven't claimed. I'm simply observing and commenting

And you'll note, by the way, that at no point did I state you had. So please forgive me if you felt any disrespect was rendered- none was intended. However, since the point of my original post was how stupid it is to use one style's lineage story to dogmatically undermine others, I did interpret your rebuttal within that context- that you felt that the use of such dogmatic undermining, and the use of vitriolic non-arguments (my past few posts are filled with examples) was fully justified by the supposed nonexistance of absolute historical truth. Again, my bad

Nicely put.

Thanks

Your turn. Looking forward to your response.

Check