Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65

Thread: Are "Grandmasters" helping or hurting the progress of kung fu?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The state that resembles a middle finger.
    Posts
    3,274
    there is nothing to fear in a mma fighter except being taken to the ground, and even there they are lacklustre.
    lol funny. everything is dictated by rule sets. MMA has open rules compared to thai or boxing. you sir are an idiot. Lackluster? I would say more than half are BB in BJJ or have wrestling backgrounds. I wouldn't call that lackluster. Seriously have you been living under a rock?
    Originally posted by Bawang
    i had an old taichi lady talk smack behind my back. i mean comon man, come on. if it was 200 years ago,, mebbe i wouldve smacked her and took all her monehs.
    Originally posted by Bawang
    i am manly and strong. do not insult me cracker.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    Every era in which there was not a dynasty based on one or the other of the Northern nomadic people, the Chinese were actively subjugating the Northern nomadic peoples. And there were more of those eras. This is basic history, just because you don't want it to be that way doesn't change the fact.

    Are you saying the Long March didn't happen? Care to cite a source on that?

    Also, you might want to keep in mind that a great many Japanese atrocities were in retribution for resistance from the Chinese.

    Good luck with your reliance on non peer reviewed histories on the internet to inform yourself.
    Yeah I've got a whole library on Chinese civilisation/culture. I buy books from "china books' all the time. I've attended different lectures, listened to many experts.. there was a recent documentary on the historical veracity of the long march. A lot of Western academics are sceptical of the exaggerated claims of the chinese communists, with their filtered, censored, revisionist history of this and other histories.

    20 million murdered by Japanese military is no mere retribution but a deliberate out right cleansing/holocaust. Delude yourself son, with your shaolin warrior fantasies, even the British kicked the **** out of the Chinese during the opium wars, whilst the rest of the European countries tore it up during the Qing. The Chinese were defeated. Do I have to post photos of the Chinese being murdered by the fanatical japs? There is a strange twist of historic irony when a small nomadic tibetan culture invades and conquerors a monolithic sized China. China is the size of 1.6 billion, and Tibet 5million. Do your maths son, look at the humiliation and embarrassment of an empire being torn apart by nomadic pastrolists.

    There has been a continuous line of cruelty and tyranny running deep in China from the Xia dynasty up until the present day. I can't glean any of the fruits you speak of when you compare it to the ancient european world which did in fact experiment with law, republicanism, assemblies, equlity of sexes, secularism (at certain points). Chinese history is just a continuous line of mad megalomaniacal rulers acting like despots with their enfoffements and prison camps. Why don't you do a search on the Chinese that went around stark naked (because of poverty) up until and during the republican era?

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonzbane76 View Post
    lol funny. everything is dictated by rule sets. MMA has open rules compared to thai or boxing. you sir are an idiot. Lackluster? I would say more than half are BB in BJJ or have wrestling backgrounds. I wouldn't call that lackluster. Seriously have you been living under a rock?
    Maybe you should compare some boxing vids to mma and whatever other prison sex brawling culture you can think of. You don't think that a 'certain' scum bag boxer would have wiped the deck of these idiots?

  4. #34

    Cool

    [QUOTE=Dale Dugas;1270496]More verbal diarrhea from net ghosts.

    Show me some peer reviewed studies that tcm actually works, and I might start to take you half seriously.


  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoking Gun View Post
    Maybe you should compare some boxing vids to mma and whatever other prison sex brawling culture you can think of. You don't think that a 'certain' scum bag boxer would have wiped the deck of these idiots?
    If straight up boxers could win in MMA they would. The rule set doesn't work for orthodox boxing...you need mixed martial arts skills to compete in mixed martial arts...but I doubt your even being serious with this ridiculous nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Great Lakes State, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Vicius View Post
    Smoking Gun have some good points.

    Well gong fu, as we know them, have nothing to do with war, tha's for sure, in war you use primarily weapons, and the movements permited in a war fighting are not so wide like in gong fu, -just guessing, I'm not an historiar- so maybe the most simple and direct techniques could have some use in war, I mean ancient kind of war. So if gung fu have nothing to do with war, why we should measure it with a chinese state incapable of wining a war? Thats a mather of armies, governments and the population.

    I think gung fu have a bunch of crap in it, like any art that have passed large social and political periods of peace, and was combined with religious credences, and philosophical issues... ohhh and chinese opera, I almost forgot the chinese opera. So chinese -and I'm going to say it this way- fighting arts, where not destroyed, it´s like one boxer that is defeated by another boxer, you can't say that box was destroyed, just one fighter was better than the other, better trained, more strong, that have specialiced his techniques and can use them with success.

    I, sincerily, don't give a **** if anyone think's that chinese fighting arts are good or bad, or if everybody quits or starts to practice Chinese fighting styles tomorrow, I'm not going to earn more money for that; but I like the talk . And I wish Smoking Gun could talk more about this following:



    because it looks interesting. Maybe another thread or PM
    Don't you mean "Kung Fu"?

  7. #37
    Well actually I don't like calling kung fu/gong fu to chinesse fighting systems, kung fu doesn't mean fighting, if you have some kind of kung fu that can be used to fight is one thing, or if you develop some kung fu to fight, but there are people that knows a form, and he says he "knows kung fu", that's bull****.

    And I don't know what's your problem Smoking Gun, many people have been conquered by other and you can not discredit all their legacy, the Romans conquered all Europe, and I don't see anyone saying that the germans are people without fighting spirit, or the British, or the Spanish, that where also conquered by the Muslims.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoking Gun View Post
    Yeah I've got a whole library on Chinese civilisation/culture.
    And how many of those books are by scholars that are well respected in their field?

    I buy books from "china books' all the time.
    You have a credit card, congratulations.

    I've attended different lectures, listened to many experts..
    None of whom you can actually name.

    there was a recent documentary on the historical veracity of the long march. A lot of Western academics are sceptical of the exaggerated claims of the chinese communists, with their filtered, censored, revisionist history of this and other histories.
    Again, what is the name of this or what experts were used in it? There's not that many China experts whose expertise applies here, if you have such a large library and know so much about it, these names become pretty familiar pretty quickly.

    The problem is, there were quite a few survivors who seemed to carry on a consistent story, whether they later were less pleased with the party or not, whether they stayed in China or not, on what occurred on the march. There are apocryphal stories, to be certain, but the idea that the march did not occur, that it did not occur in relation to actions of the Nationalists, is a bit out of the bulk of scholarship on this topic.

    20 million murdered by Japanese military is no mere retribution but a deliberate out right cleansing/holocaust.
    No, the Japanese wanted Chinese to act as workers, just as they had expected of the Koreans and the Ainu and other Asians they considered their lesser brothers. Unrest in China caused them to seek to root out political enemies, which required ever increasing repression that drove ever greater numbers into opposition, just as would happen in the ROK when they carried on Japanese policies toward dissidents in later years.

    Japan needed Chinese workers to work in Manchuria, and the communists endangered that. The Japanese leadership's entire Asian co-prosperity sphere was a necessary condition for competing against the West, Japan could not populate China with Japanese workers, not could it count on Korean workers, as they also were creating unrest in North China and agitating. The repression was not much different that the actions of the ROK later, overreaction to political dissidents that ultimately fed into and benefited those dissidents.

    Delude yourself son, with your shaolin warrior fantasies
    I was wondering when the ad hominem attack was coming. All talk, no fact, you are.

    even the British kicked the **** out of the Chinese during the opium wars, whilst the rest of the European countries tore it up during the Qing.
    Both of these were in the Qing, and one was the result of the other. And now they are considered a great power by U.S. experts. So what?

    The Chinese were defeated. Do I have to post photos of the Chinese being murdered by the fanatical japs?
    I have not disputed that there were defeats in Chinese history. No state has existed as long without also facing defeats. Again, what is your point?

    There is a strange twist of historic irony when a small nomadic tibetan culture invades and conquerors a monolithic sized China.
    Tibetan? The Tibetans didn't invade and conquer China. Are you talking about the Mongols? Manchu?

    China is the size of 1.6 billion, and Tibet 5million. Do your maths son,
    Do your geography, Tibet didn't conquer China.

    look at the humiliation and embarrassment of an empire being torn apart by nomadic pastrolists.
    If you are talking about the Mongols, then we are discussing more than pastoral folk, but military leaders who defeated a lot more leaders than those of China, who had advisors from all cultures, including a number of Chinese advisors who were well respected for the skills by the Khan, and who were a massive cavalry force, just like the Manchu.

    In the case of the Manchu, again, they had non-Manchu bannermen from many regions, they made use of cavalry in the North and ground troops and boats to gain access to the South. Hardly simple nomads at that time in history.

    From there, the Manchu were acclimated over time by the imperial system.

    The Mongols could not hold the territory because the need for the imperial system's bureaucracy meant adoption of Chinese customs, which made it easy for chieftains in the steppes to attack the authority of mongols living as Chinese.

    In the periods before and between these periods, the Chinese played nomadic chieftains one against the other and employed their cavalries in their armies.

    There has been a continuous line of cruelty and tyranny running deep in China from the Xia dynasty up until the present day.
    BS.

    I can't glean any of the fruits you speak of when you compare it to the ancient european world which did in fact experiment with law,
    I'll just assume you mean rule of law, as in precedent.

    republicanism, assemblies, equlity of sexes, secularism (at certain points).
    Aside from ascribing a whole mess of stuff to all western powers during those times when it doesn't apply, it is amazing that you break out secularism. I'll assume you count Confucianism as a religion.

    And despite all that, 1/3 of the wars in the world at any point in that time were in Europe. This wouldn't end until the U.S. and Russia made Western Europe a nuclear hotspot not to push. Not one day before. Plenty of torture in all that time, plenty of cruel Kings, ending with nationalism and conflict of empires. Equality of the sexes is a joke in almost that entire period. Guillotines. Etc.

    Chinese history is just a continuous line of mad megalomaniacal rulers
    Bleh. Generalizations. These do not historical analysis make.

    Why don't you do a search on the Chinese that went around stark naked (because of poverty) up until and during the republican era?
    You seem to be extending your history back to one period, and then applying it retroactively to all periods, including periods in which China's economic status was dominant, including to the Brits.

    I am highly amused as you go from "the Chinese are weak and have always been weak" to "their leaders are cruel, and WOMEN'S RIGHTS!" I will give you credit for being a feminist.

    After every period in which cavalry from the North took China, the Chinese took total control of those regions again, divided these Northerners, used the ones that were loyal to them as cavalry, and made it harder for such people's to retake China. The Xiongnu's approach for taking China would no longer work by the time of the Mongols, the Mongol approach no longer worked by the time of the Manchu. In each case, a more technological China required a more advanced force to take it, which could be said about a great many places across the world that contributed to global development worldwide in both the East and West.

    Your entire premiss is that your society is only good if others are bad. Your society is based on a melange of eastern and western ideas, from China's bureaucracy to Iroquois ideas on democracy and warfare to Indian and Persian math to a huge number of other factors, all of which form the basis for your life, whether you like it or not.

    I do support the fact that you are a feminist.

    Now again, what were the sources for your info?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The state that resembles a middle finger.
    Posts
    3,274
    Maybe you should compare some boxing vids to mma and whatever other prison sex brawling culture you can think of. You don't think that a 'certain' scum bag boxer would have wiped the deck of these idiots?
    as ten others and myself have stated, it's all rule sets. If I took a "mma" guy and put him in the ring with a boxer and they were only allowed to do boxing rule set then yes the boxer would probably win. Reverse that and the mma guy will probably win. Anyways I think your trying to troll, if your life is that boring that you have to say dumb things then maybe you should go play in traffic.
    Originally posted by Bawang
    i had an old taichi lady talk smack behind my back. i mean comon man, come on. if it was 200 years ago,, mebbe i wouldve smacked her and took all her monehs.
    Originally posted by Bawang
    i am manly and strong. do not insult me cracker.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    And how many of those books are by scholars that are well respected in their field?



    You have a credit card, congratulations.



    None of whom you can actually name.



    Again, what is the name of this or what experts were used in it? There's not that many China experts whose expertise applies here, if you have such a large library and know so much about it, these names become pretty familiar pretty quickly.

    The problem is, there were quite a few survivors who seemed to carry on a consistent story, whether they later were less pleased with the party or not, whether they stayed in China or not, on what occurred on the march. There are apocryphal stories, to be certain, but the idea that the march did not occur, that it did not occur in relation to actions of the Nationalists, is a bit out of the bulk of scholarship on this topic.



    No, the Japanese wanted Chinese to act as workers, just as they had expected of the Koreans and the Ainu and other Asians they considered their lesser brothers. Unrest in China caused them to seek to root out political enemies, which required ever increasing repression that drove ever greater numbers into opposition, just as would happen in the ROK when they carried on Japanese policies toward dissidents in later years.

    Japan needed Chinese workers to work in Manchuria, and the communists endangered that. The Japanese leadership's entire Asian co-prosperity sphere was a necessary condition for competing against the West, Japan could not populate China with Japanese workers, not could it count on Korean workers, as they also were creating unrest in North China and agitating. The repression was not much different that the actions of the ROK later, overreaction to political dissidents that ultimately fed into and benefited those dissidents.



    I was wondering when the ad hominem attack was coming. All talk, no fact, you are.



    Both of these were in the Qing, and one was the result of the other. And now they are considered a great power by U.S. experts. So what?



    I have not disputed that there were defeats in Chinese history. No state has existed as long without also facing defeats. Again, what is your point?



    Tibetan? The Tibetans didn't invade and conquer China. Are you talking about the Mongols? Manchu?



    Do your geography, Tibet didn't conquer China.



    If you are talking about the Mongols, then we are discussing more than pastoral folk, but military leaders who defeated a lot more leaders than those of China, who had advisors from all cultures, including a number of Chinese advisors who were well respected for the skills by the Khan, and who were a massive cavalry force, just like the Manchu.

    In the case of the Manchu, again, they had non-Manchu bannermen from many regions, they made use of cavalry in the North and ground troops and boats to gain access to the South. Hardly simple nomads at that time in history.

    From there, the Manchu were acclimated over time by the imperial system.

    The Mongols could not hold the territory because the need for the imperial system's bureaucracy meant adoption of Chinese customs, which made it easy for chieftains in the steppes to attack the authority of mongols living as Chinese.

    In the periods before and between these periods, the Chinese played nomadic chieftains one against the other and employed their cavalries in their armies.



    BS.



    I'll just assume you mean rule of law, as in precedent.



    Aside from ascribing a whole mess of stuff to all western powers during those times when it doesn't apply, it is amazing that you break out secularism. I'll assume you count Confucianism as a religion.

    And despite all that, 1/3 of the wars in the world at any point in that time were in Europe. This wouldn't end until the U.S. and Russia made Western Europe a nuclear hotspot not to push. Not one day before. Plenty of torture in all that time, plenty of cruel Kings, ending with nationalism and conflict of empires. Equality of the sexes is a joke in almost that entire period. Guillotines. Etc.



    Bleh. Generalizations. These do not historical analysis make.



    You seem to be extending your history back to one period, and then applying it retroactively to all periods, including periods in which China's economic status was dominant, including to the Brits.

    I am highly amused as you go from "the Chinese are weak and have always been weak" to "their leaders are cruel, and WOMEN'S RIGHTS!" I will give you credit for being a feminist.

    After every period in which cavalry from the North took China, the Chinese took total control of those regions again, divided these Northerners, used the ones that were loyal to them as cavalry, and made it harder for such people's to retake China. The Xiongnu's approach for taking China would no longer work by the time of the Mongols, the Mongol approach no longer worked by the time of the Manchu. In each case, a more technological China required a more advanced force to take it, which could be said about a great many places across the world that contributed to global development worldwide in both the East and West.

    Your entire premiss is that your society is only good if others are bad. Your society is based on a melange of eastern and western ideas, from China's bureaucracy to Iroquois ideas on democracy and warfare to Indian and Persian math to a huge number of other factors, all of which form the basis for your life, whether you like it or not.

    I do support the fact that you are a feminist.

    Now again, what were the sources for your info?
    What you say is complete hogwash unsubstantiated history garnered from the Chinese Communist annals.

    Do a search on China books.. they only carry academic titles.

    Yes son, the Tibetan's certainly did conquer the Chinese capital Chang'an, going so far as to set up a brief dynasty, before abandoning the capital 763.

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ang’an&f=false

    Are you going to deny the gas chambers or are you going to burry your head in the sand and continue to engage in communist revisionism? The Tibetan's did in fact invade and harass the Chinese for long periods of time, even the Dalai Lama has mentioned this, something the communist's will try to deny. The point is that a massive monolithic empire was still vulnerable and intimidated by small nomadic cultures, which bursts the bubble of an unrelenting chinese warrior race. And your still acting like the Mongolian conquests were a mere blind spot on Chinese history, when they were in fact a major destabilising force, in much the same way the nazi's were for the Jews.

    I'm laughing and shaking my finger at you when you try to deny the Japanese holocaust and racism towards the Chinese during world war 2. The Japanese had an extreme fascist ideology with a racial extremism comparable to the Nazis. When 20 million people are killed, it's a holocaust. Maybe you should do some research on Japanese militarism before world war 2 - there was a strong unified ideology that the chinese were a subhuman race to be worked as slaves before being packed off as cattle to the slaughter house. Wicked and trully evil.

    If you want to read about secularism read about King Alfred or even the Magna Carta. Have you ever heard of the Thing or Moot? Even Francis Fukuyama has argued that China is to be credited with founding the first truly monolithic tyrannical state. A lot of Chinese are ambivalent to democracy - look how diminutive the chinese pro democracy movement is in the West. It is basically restricted to the Falun Gong. Western civilisation is a combination of Judaeo- Christianity and Greco Roman culture, and doesn't have the underlying Chinese influence you say. Civilisation began in the Middle East. China from its very ancient period had trade networks with the Middle East, who in fact influenced the Chinese with science technology, art and law! Metallurgy, city building and agriculture did not in fact originate in China.

    You can call me a feminist, but your nothing but a western chinese sinophile, who slavishly reads his history books from the xinhua news agency.

  11. #41
    The Long March myth is being compared in reconditeness (by western academics), to the similar myth of the mass Jewish exodus from Egypt. It's fiercely contested history, since it is not scientifically substantiated.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoking Gun View Post
    What you say is complete hogwash unsubstantiated history garnered from the Chinese Communist annals.
    Funny, coming from a guy who has so far only misquoted one source. I am familiar with the major scholars in this field, know some of them, and none are big on Chinese Party propaganda.

    Do a search on China books.. they only carry academic titles.
    I am quite familiar with them, I get emails from them regularly seeking to sell books. I've read a number of the books they carry, but generally try to restrict myself to those written by noted scholars in the field. Not all academic titles are equal.

    Yes son, the Tibetan's certainly did conquer the Chinese capital Chang'an, going so far as to set up a brief dynasty, before abandoning the capital 763.
    And this is where your revisionist approach becomes clearer. You earlier stated that they conquered China, now you say they took Chang'an. You omit that this lasted for fifteen days, and your own source notes how China, after fifty years, sewed dissent amongst the Tibetan alliance. Additionally, you apply this as a stain on all Chinese history, despite the source you use clearly pointing out that, once this ended, never again was Tibet able to do anything like this.

    You don't conquer China by never touching the North China Plan, or the South reaches of the coast. You lied to make a point, son.

    [quote]Are you going to deny the gas chambers or are you going to burry your head in the sand and continue to engage in communist revisionism?[quote]

    I'll explain a bit further how you are using revisionism to suggest an alternate history that supports your point. And wait with great patience to see you cite a single major scholar in this field.

    The Tibetan's did in fact invade and harass the Chinese for long periods of time, even the Dalai Lama has mentioned this, something the communist's will try to deny.
    Here it is. Your source cites CHINESE sources on the war with Tibet, in freeking 763 AD. The communists don't seem to be denying that. They may not play it up a lot, just as we don't do a lot of bragging about the War of 1812. The Romans faced similar troubles, and their empire ceased to exist. The Chinese empire didn't.

    The point is that a massive monolithic empire was still vulnerable and intimidated by small nomadic cultures, which bursts the bubble of an unrelenting chinese warrior race.
    This same flawed logic can easily be used to describe the romans as warriors, the vikings as warriors, pretty much every empire. All empires have had similar difficulties with their far frontiers. You posit an unrelenting monolithic nomad threat as a counter to a monolithic warrior culture that you argue simply to have a point. The nomads, divided, were not a threat, and that is usually how they were kept in the background through much of history, be it Chinese, Roman, or British history. Or American.

    And your still acting like the Mongolian conquests were a mere blind spot on Chinese history, when they were in fact a major destabilising force, in much the same way the nazi's were for the Jews.
    I am not acting that way, I am explaining to you how they fit in a pattern in which the efforts required for these nomads to conquer China grew more and more difficult to achieve, through advancements in approaches to warfare, politics, and economics as well. And how these nomads, at the point where they conquered China, were not mere tribes without advanced, for their day, approaches to warfare. Europe was terrified of Genghis Khan for a reason.

    I'm laughing and shaking my finger at you when you try to deny the Japanese holocaust and racism towards the Chinese during world war 2. The Japanese had an extreme fascist ideology with a racial extremism comparable to the Nazis. When 20 million people are killed, it's a holocaust. Maybe you should do some research on Japanese militarism before world war 2 - there was a strong unified ideology that the chinese were a subhuman race to be worked as slaves before being packed off as cattle to the slaughter house. Wicked and trully evil.
    The Japanese co-prosperity sphere was racist, the actions taken in Korea, China, and in Japan, towards non-Japanese were certainly heinous, but the fact is that the basis was never similar to the German Final Solution. The bulk of the population in Manchuria was still Chinese, and much of the killing was based around stopping resistance, an extreme right overreaction that would often be repeated during the cold war. They certainly worked Chinese laborers under horrible conditions, even to death, but they saw themselves as the saviors of the Chinese, and their war efforts depended on them and other groups. Japan's population could not act as the totality of wartime manufacturing, they were too few, and so, unlike the Nazis, total extermination was not the goal. I have never denied that what Japan did then was racist, slavery in the Americas was racist, but wiping out the workforce was not a common goal, something you seem to believe to be so. The Japanese considered the Ainu perhaps even lower than the Chinese, a race that had not kept up with evolution, they probably could have wiped them out, but they did not. The reason is based in the fact that the Ainu had little power to fight back, the Chinese could and did resist, which is well documented by historians from the PRC, Taiwan, Britain, the U.S., etc. It was a source of great popularity for the CCCP among the Chinese people, which is also well documented by many sources of different political stripes, though the CCCP were not the only ones fighting or resisting the Japanese.

    So, straw man on your part, there. Never said that the Japanese did not do numerous and horrendous things in China, but the story of all that is a bit more complicated than the one you wish to present.

    If you want to read about secularism read about King Alfred or even the Magna Carta. Have you ever heard of the Thing or Moot? Even Francis Fukuyama has argued that China is to be credited with founding the first truly monolithic tyrannical state.
    Which state? If it is the Xia, which is mostly prehistory, then this is meaningless, as there could have been others, it could have been a norm, and we cannot prove it. Since you earlier use the Xia as the basis, I will assume this.

    Which is all kind of irrelevant. Fukuyama has pretty well proven that he is not able to predict outcomes of global forces any more than a host of others using a host of other frames of reference. He is interesting, but considering that he pushed for invasion of Iraq as policy and then was surprised by how that worked, and apparently had no sense of what role liberal economic policies would play in it, I tend to find his analysis has required him to constantly both adjust his positions and retrench himself in the work that made him famous, which has not translated well.

    That said, his prediction was ballsy.

    A lot of Chinese are ambivalent to democracy
    Some are, some aren't.

    - look how diminutive the chinese pro democracy movement is in the West. It is basically restricted to the Falun Gong.
    No. And the Falun Gong is not only not a particularly democratic group, but they are basically a wannabe emperor and his followers. Sorry, they use the U.S. to attack the PRC, and certain people in the U.S. buy into all that, but falun gong are NOT typical of pro democracy Chinese.

    Western civilisation is a combination of Judaeo- Christianity and Greco Roman culture, and doesn't have the underlying Chinese influence you say.
    Western countries, through Britain, absorbed legalist practices into their bureaucracies from the eighteenth century on. We won't even cover the fact that the Greco part of Greco Roman culture was influenced by regions East and West of it, I wouldn't want to mess with your ideals of totally discrete cultures too much, which is, at this point, little more than a nationalist myth. The British, French, and later, the U.S., adopted many native American practices in warfare. We won't mention math, it all gets really messy once we look at how math was developed. There is no discrete culture, they are all hybrids, and China, among others, has a large number of influences.

    A tremendous amounts of Benjamin Franklin's quotations are from Chinese sources. Are you saying the idioms of Ben Franklin have no impact on U.S. culture?

    Civilisation began in the Middle East. China from its very ancient period had trade networks with the Middle East, who in fact influenced the Chinese with science technology, art and law! Metallurgy, city building and agriculture did not in fact originate in China.
    Not sure what your point is here. You are aware that there are developments in each of those fields that DID originate in China, right?

    You can call me a feminist, but your nothing but a western chinese sinophile, who slavishly reads his history books from the xinhua news agency.
    I knew you'd take that as an insult. Great job on proving how backhanded your admiration for Western development of woman's equality really is. You only cite it if it can help you not like Chinese culture, right?

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoking Gun View Post
    The Long March myth is being compared in reconditeness (by western academics), to the similar myth of the mass Jewish exodus from Egypt. It's fiercely contested history, since it is not scientifically substantiated.
    Again, which scholars? Because I know a number of major ones who have no great love of the CCP that have never once suggested what you are saying. Not one of them. Name these "western academics".

  14. #44
    No need to reply, For something that is so hotly contested, I see nothing about it on a cursory search of the databases, or even a Google search. I'm not even seeing conspiracy theories about it. I think your western scholars are also 6' tall rabbits that no one but you can see.

    Plus, MMA is good.

  15. #45
    Not that this really needs to be said, but I have a master's degree in Chinese history from one of the top schools in the country, NEVER heard that the long march was contested... but this IS the internet LOL
    Chan Tai San Book at https://www.createspace.com/4891253

    Quote Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn View Post
    well, like LKFMDC - he's a genuine Kung Fu Hero™
    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    As much as I get annoyed when it gets derailed by the array of strange angry people that hover around him like moths, his good posts are some of my favorites.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellen Bassette View Post
    I think he goes into a cave to meditate and recharge his chi...and bite the heads off of bats, of course....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •