• Due to a certain user cat fishing the site, we've disabled all private messages. Please use the forums, thanks.
  • Search Function Works Now =)

Ignorant Morons stealing Chinese culture on "Princess of China" video

Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
240
Likes
0
Points
16
#1
in the comment section

[video=youtube;1Uw6ZkbsAH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uw6ZkbsAH8[/video]



ninjas are Japanese
true, ninjas are Japanese. what makes you think he is a ninja and not just an assassin. Japanese did not invent wearing all black. it happens to work well at night. what's more. [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
Togakure-ryū (戸隠流?) is a historical tradition of Ninjutsu known as the "School of the Hidden Door", founded during the Oho period (1161-1162) by Daisuke Nishina (Togakure), who learned his original fighting techniques from a Chinese monk named Kain Dōshi.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togakure-ryū





katanas are Japanese
true, katanas are Japanese. what makes you think it is a katana and not a Chinese sword?

Early examples of Japanese swords were straight chokutō or jōkotō and others with unusual shapes. In the Heian period (8th to 11th centuries) sword-making developed through techniques brought over from China through trade in the early 10th century. Earlier curved sword designs similar to the katana were used in China such as the Zhanmadao.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_sword#Early_history








kimonos are Japanese
true, kimonos is Japanese clothing. i saw no kimono there, but even if i did.


As the kimono has another name, gofuku (呉服?, literally "clothes of Wu (吳)"), the earliest kimonos were heavily influenced by traditional Han Chinese clothing, known today as hanfu (漢服?, kanfuku in Japanese), through Japanese embassies to China which resulted in extensive Chinese culture adoptions by Japan, as early as the 5th century AD.[5] It was during the 8th century, however, that Chinese fashions came into style among the Japanese, and the overlapping collar became particularly women's fashion.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimono#History








the drums are Japanese
true, taiko drums are Japanese. where did they come from?


The various drums of taiko are of Chinese origin and were brought to Japan between the Yayoi period (500 BC - 300 AD). Along with the martial use of the drums, they also held a strong foundation in the court style music called Gagaku, performed in the castles and shrines across ancient Japan. Gagaku alone is one of the oldest styles of court music that is still being played in the world today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiko#The_early_history_of_taiko








the multi hand dance is Thai
dont be ridiculous. what is the Thai dance called? what deity does it represent? i will tell you the truth.


Guanyin Thousand Arms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanyin#Guanyin_and_the_Thousand_Arms


the dance itself


Thousand Hand Bodhisattva (Guan Yin) (千手观音)

Zhang Jigang's most famous and influential production. The piece features 21 hearing impaired dancers who form remarkable arm and hand positions by standing behind each other in a perfect column. Breathtaking images are created as the dancers produce perfectly timed and choreographed movements. The show quickly became a national treasure and overwhelming domestic success. It was first performed internationally at the Kennedy Centre in Washington, D.C. in front of former President of the United States Bill Clinton, senior White House staff and spectators. It generated rave reviews and was showcased shortly thereafter around the world in countries including Australia, Japan, North Korea, Egypt, Turkey and Italy. In 2004 it was performed at the Closing Ceremonies for the 2004 Summer Paralympics in Athens, Greece (see it here) and Miss World 2004 pageant held in Sanya, China.[2] The primary filmed version was captured in 2005 at the Spring Festival in China on CCTV. It subsequently spread across the internet on such sites as Google Video and YouTube (see it here). It is widely estimated that hundreds of millions of Chinese and international viewers around the world have viewed the videos online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_...29_.28.E5.8D.83.E6.89.8B.E8.A7.82.E9.9F.B3.29




the spirit of these comments is ok. you should not lump asian cultures together out of ignorance. what makes this very ironic is their "corrections" are WRONG. at best, trying to imply no connection to Chinese. at worst, blatantly stealing Chinese culture and saying it is someone elses. all as a result of IGNORANCE. ill acknowledge the sword FIGHTING style is probably Japanese though.
 

Dan

Wtf are you doi-....
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
8,268
Likes
0
Points
36
#2
I'm sure we all agree that this video is historically and ethnically inaccurate.

Now I only have one question: Who cares?

It's entertainment, and it's entertainment produced by non-Asians geared towards an audience of which the majority is non-Asian. It's to be expected lmao. A shame, but oh well lol
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
240
Likes
0
Points
16
#3
actually this is not about non asians. it is about other asians who, because they dont have any clue what they are talking about, are claiming things are not Chinese when they are. this kind of cultural theft would piss any real Chinese off.

it also points to a bigger problem. Japan has done a better job marketing its culture to the world. to the point even Chinese originated things, are seen as Japanese, and Chinese are the ones copying. so many fans of anime watch the show and think Kanji is Japanese originated. wow, even Chinese script will be seen as someone elses one day. its completely backwards.

one day, people will say Han Fu was influenced BY Ao Dai, Kimono, Hanbok. and thats when ill know Chinese failed in the most profound way in its entire history.
 

ralphrepo

Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
3,966
Likes
0
Points
36
#4
Agree with Dan, it's just entertainment.

LOL... What a video. I found it hilarious even as it was tongue in cheek humor. But "stealing" Chinese culture? Oh please. Like Asians (including China) don't ever steal foreign culture, bastardize and then recast it. In fact, Chinese have been stealing western culture whenever they wear a three piece suit, whether sold to them by Chinese or western tailors. It's all about making money. If Chop Suey sells, then people will make it whether they're Chinese or not (even as the product clearly isn't even Chinese cuisine in the first place by any means). Likewise, this video's authors wanted something that seemed to have an exotic Chinese flair to shill to a very unsophisticated Audience. As such, they put in a variety of Asian motifs which on the surface is enough to get by ignorant audiences but fails on many levels for historical accuracy. But, insofar as stealing other people's shit, nothing comes close to the present PRC claims on 90% of the South China Sea. That is what I would consider real stealing.

That said, IMHO, this video clearly pays homage to the Shaw Brothers kung fu films out of 1960-1980's HK. The opening is almost an exact copy of the iconic "Shaw Scope" historic logo, seen at the beginning of all their films. Tellingly they purposely used 中國公主 instead of 中国公主, that is, the traditional text instead of simplified, thereby acknowledging that historic difference between Hong Kong and the mainland, and choosing the text that would have been used in Hong Kong.

Original Shaw Brothers Logo

Coldplay's visual echo of Shaw Brothers Logo

In this instance Chris Martin (of Coldplay), pretends to be a Japanese martial warrior (Ninja or whatever) trying to do battle with a Chinese princess, played by Rihanna. That there is a mix of both Japanese and Chinese cultures presented here as background is not unusual at all as the video seems to be about their clash in cultures (I think a lot of angry Chinese just happened to have missed that as they were only too happy to be angry). But in the end he sits enthralled at her shaking her "Chinese" booty instead of slicing and dicing her. I hope he has lots of dollar bills, LOL...

[video=youtube;_8-_dP8hUBU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8-_dP8hUBU[/video]

[video=youtube;NAIxBXekQdA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAIxBXekQdA&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;j-VIxT2CnGs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-VIxT2CnGs&feature=related[/video]
Oh, and for people that really want to be sticklers on Chinese historical accuracy, here's one: none of the supposed Chinese imperial buildings had any zoomorphic figure tiles:

 
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
240
Likes
0
Points
16
#5
no, stealing is when Chinese claim western suits came from Chinese. which is exactly what other Asians are doing to Chinese culture. this is not about the video itself. example, it is about some non Chinese saying the Thousand Hand Guan Yin dance is Thai. or that Han Fu is a Kimono/Kimono influenced.


im talking about the comment section by the way. it seems people are confused what i am talking about.
 

Dan

Wtf are you doi-....
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
8,268
Likes
0
Points
36
#6
Ah, my mistake. WI thought you were referring to the video. But you have a point, it does get frustrating when non-experts make atrocious claims not unlike those commentors.

But in order to not lose my shit over stuff like this, I've just accepted the fact that there are ignorant idiots in the world whose communication is facilitated by the internet and call it a day. It's a shame people think they understand things when they don't, but that's the nature of man and it's hard to convince them otherwise.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
240
Likes
0
Points
16
#7
i can appreciate that. but i have to speak out. even if nobody here agrees with me or thinks im some crazy man (.........)

Chinese are losing spectacularly in the marketing of our own culture. as a result, all sorts of Chinese originated things are now claimed to be someone elses. it makes it 10x worse because their spirit is not to lump all asian together and respect different cultures. this is a great spirit and goal to have. the problem is they do this by disrespecting and stealing Chinese culture since they have no idea what they are talking about. they claim a moral goal at first, then proceed to steal and perpetuate lies.

do we want more "kung fu came from india" comments? such lies have been repeated so many times even CHINESE (well, overseas, somewhat whitewashed ones) are starting to believe it.

i just feel at the very least, Chinese forums should have the truth. i cannot be silent.
 

Dan

Wtf are you doi-....
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
8,268
Likes
0
Points
36
#8
i can appreciate that. but i have to speak out. even if nobody here agrees with me or thinks im some crazy man (.........)

Chinese are losing spectacularly in the marketing of our own culture. as a result, all sorts of Chinese originated things are now claimed to be someone elses. it makes it 10x worse because their spirit is not to lump all asian together and respect different cultures. this is a great spirit and goal to have. the problem is they do this by disrespecting and stealing Chinese culture since they have no idea what they are talking about. they claim a moral goal at first, then proceed to steal and perpetuate lies.

do we want more "kung fu came from india" comments? such lies have been repeated so many times even CHINESE (well, overseas, somewhat whitewashed ones) are starting to believe it.

i just feel at the very least, Chinese forums should have the truth. i cannot be silent.
I can appreciate your feeling on this matter. I too, find that as we live in a multi-cultural society, it becomes harder and harder to keep track of what's accurate and what's not. That's simply the nature of the beast, as unfortunate as it is.

I think I understand why these absurd claims have been made. Take the claim "kung fu came from India" for example.

We know Kung Fu has many types: Wing Chun, Wu Shu, Choy Li Fut, Shaolin etc. Each style has been developed through its own history, with different origins from one another. If I recall correctly, Wing Chun, for example, was developed as a style of defence for women, focusing strictly on movement that leverage the characteristics of the female body. To say it shared the same origin as, say, the style of Hung Kuen (Wong Fei Hung's style), is wrong.

Having said that, Shaolin is said to have been originated from an Indian monk named Boddhidharma. Shaolin follows the path of Buddhism, due to the fact that, in those days, Indian monks were teaching Buddhist teachings that were incorporated into the Shaolin style. And Buddhism, itself, had an Indian origin.

So you see, to say that "Kung Fu came from India" is wrong, but it is also correct to a certain aspect. Shaolin Kung Fu had an Indian origin. There are other styles, believe it or not, that even have a Muslim origin.

It's just the mumbling idiots of Youtube (and the world for that matter), that think they know everything when they simply read one aspect of something, and generalize it. They read up that Shaolin Kung Fu had an Indian origin, and generalized it to say that all Kung Fu had an Indian origin, because to put it simply, they don't know better.

Source on the origins of Shaolin Kung Fu: http://www.rising-dragon.co.uk/articles/martial-arts/origins-of-shaolin-kung-fu.htm
Source on Muslim Chinese Martial Arts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Chinese_martial_arts

Though there are idiots who falsely generalize the things they read, I must also point out that to say that "all things that originated from China are exclusively of Chinese origin" is flawed in and of itself. All invention and innovation have, to a varying degree, occurred due to inspiration and/or have been deviated from a different origin, whether foreign or otherwise. If you trace back the origins of anything, there will be at least a minute trace of foreign inspiration in all creation. So to say something is exclusively of one ethnicity is also not correct, as is the generalization of things.
 

lahn doe

New Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
19
Likes
0
Points
1
#9
This is the tech age and people get their 'knowledge' from media. Japan is one of the top in pop culture from video games to anime. China has nothing. Hong Kong had some kung fu movies back in the day, but not much now. Many people are familiar with Japanese culture for this reason. It is ignorance and not really theft. People aren't disrespecting the Chinese, they just don't know much about it.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
240
Likes
0
Points
16
#10
I can appreciate your feeling on this matter. I too, find that as we live in a multi-cultural society, it becomes harder and harder to keep track of what's accurate and what's not. That's simply the nature of the beast, as unfortunate as it is.

I think I understand why these absurd claims have been made. Take the claim "kung fu came from India" for example.

We know Kung Fu has many types: Wing Chun, Wu Shu, Choy Li Fut, Shaolin etc. Each style has been developed through its own history, with different origins from one another. If I recall correctly, Wing Chun, for example, was developed as a style of defence for women, focusing strictly on movement that leverage the characteristics of the female body. To say it shared the same origin as, say, the style of Hung Kuen (Wong Fei Hung's style), is wrong.

Having said that, Shaolin is said to have been originated from an Indian monk named Boddhidharma. Shaolin follows the path of Buddhism, due to the fact that, in those days, Indian monks were teaching Buddhist teachings that were incorporated into the Shaolin style. And Buddhism, itself, had an Indian origin.

So you see, to say that "Kung Fu came from India" is wrong, but it is also correct to a certain aspect. Shaolin Kung Fu had an Indian origin. There are other styles, believe it or not, that even have a Muslim origin.

It's just the mumbling idiots of Youtube (and the world for that matter), that think they know everything when they simply read one aspect of something, and generalize it. They read up that Shaolin Kung Fu had an Indian origin, and generalized it to say that all Kung Fu had an Indian origin, because to put it simply, they don't know better.

Source on the origins of Shaolin Kung Fu: http://www.rising-dragon.co.uk/articles/martial-arts/origins-of-shaolin-kung-fu.htm
Source on Muslim Chinese Martial Arts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Chinese_martial_arts

Though there are idiots who falsely generalize the things they read, I must also point out that to say that "all things that originated from China are exclusively of Chinese origin" is flawed in and of itself. All invention and innovation have, to a varying degree, occurred due to inspiration and/or have been deviated from a different origin, whether foreign or otherwise. If you trace back the origins of anything, there will be at least a minute trace of foreign inspiration in all creation. So to say something is exclusively of one ethnicity is also not correct, as is the generalization of things.

please dont take this wrong way, but you just proved exactly what i was talking about. there are ZERO historical records that says shaolin monks learned kung fu from bodhidharma.

the ORIGINAL claim, was bodhidharma saw the monk's weak state and left behind a manual called the Yi Jin Jing. the monks learned from the YJJ and develop their skills.

THEN the claim became, shaolin monks were taught kung fu by bodhidharma.

THEN the claim became, kung fu comes from india.

good freakin lord. the lie got progressively worse and worse. see why i HATE this? :rl:


let me tell the truth. for that we have to go back to the original claim.

- the YJJ does not teach kung fu fighting forms, it is mostly qigong exercises. so all this crane style w/e, it is not from YJJ.
- nowhere in the YJJ does it even mention bodhidharma.
- original claim stems from the preface of 1800's version of YJJ. this preface has been discredited by historians as utterly false.



As for the "Yi Jin Jing" (Muscle Change Classic), a spurious text attributed to Bodhidharma and included in the legend of his transmitting martial arts at the temple, it was written in the Ming dynasty, in 1624, by the Daoist priest Zining of Mt. Tiantai, and falsely attributed to Bodhidharma. Forged prefaces, attributed to the Tang general Li Jing and the Southern Song general Niu Gao were written. They say that, after Bodhidharma faced the wall for nine years at Shaolin temple, he left behind an iron chest; when the monks opened this chest they found the two books "Xi Sui Jing" (Marrow Washing Classic) and "Yi Jin Jing" within. The first book was taken by his disciple Huike, and disappeared; as for the second, "the monks selfishly coveted it, practicing the skills therein, falling into heterodox ways, and losing the correct purpose of cultivating the Real. The Shaolin monks have made some fame for themselves through their fighting skill; this is all due to having obtained this manuscript." Based on this, Bodhidharma was claimed to be the ancestor of Shaolin martial arts. This manuscript is full of errors, absurdities and fantastic claims; it cannot be taken as a legitimate source.

The oldest available copy was published in 1827[46] and the composition of the text itself has been dated to 1624.[23] Even then, the association of Bodhidharma with martial arts only became widespread as a result of the 1904–1907 serialization of the novel The Travels of Lao Ts'an in Illustrated Fiction Magazine[47]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma#Martial_arts





The legendary account may spring from two prefaces which accompany the Yijin Jing. One of these prefaces purports to be written by the general Li Jing in 628 during the Tang Dynasty, while the other purports to be written by the general Niu Gao, a junior officer of the Song Dynasty General Yue Fei. However, there are several inaccuracies and inconsistencies in these forewords that cast doubt on the authenticity of the Yijin Jing.
It was specifically the foreword by Li Jing to which Tang Hao traced the attribution of Shaolin Kung Fu to Bodhidharma.[2] Li Jing's foreword refers to "the tenth year of the Taihe period of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei."[3] The Taihe reign period did not occur under Emperor Xiaoming but under Emperor Xiaowen and, in its tenth year (487 CE), the Shaolin temple did not yet exist according to the Jiaqing Chongxiu Yitongzhi, which states that the Shaolin temple was built in the twentieth year of the Taihe era (497 CE), though the Jiaqing Chongxiu Yitongzhi was itself compiled much later in 1820.[4] Li Jing's foreword also claims that he received the manual containing the exercise from the "Bushy Bearded Hero" (虬髯客, Qiuran ke), a popular fictional character from a Tang Dynasty story of the same name by Du Guangting (850-933).[5][6]
Niu Gao's foreword mentions the Qinzhong temple, which wasn't erected until 20 years after the date he claims to be writing. He also claims to be illiterate. Dictation could resolve the question of how an illiterate could write a foreword, but it is almost certain that a general of Niu Gao's stature was not illiterate.
During the 18th century, the scholar Ling Tingkan concluded that the author of the Yijin Jing must have been an "ignorant village master".
Matsuda Ryuchi could attest to the existence of the Yijin Jing only as far back as 1827.[7] Lin Boyuan attributes the Yì Jīn Jīng to the Taoist priest Zining writing in 1624.[8]
In the course of his research, Matsuda found no mention of—let alone attribution to—Bodhidharma in any of the numerous texts written about the Shaolin martial arts[9] before the 19th century.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yijin_Jing#Modern_Scholarly_Research




The attribution of Shaolin's martial arts to Bodhidharma has been discounted by several 20th century martial arts historians, first by Tang Hao on the grounds that the Yì Jīn Jīng is a forgery.[12] Stele and documentary evidence shows the monks historically worshiped the Bodhisattva Vajrapani's "Kimnara King" form as the progenitor of their staff and bare hand fighting styles.[13]
Huiguang and Sengchou were involved with martial arts before they became two of the very first Shaolin monks, reported as practicing martial arts before the arrival of Bodhidharma.[14] Sengchou's skill with the tin staff is even documented in the Chinese Buddhist canon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Kung_Fu#History




The first of two prefaces of the manual traces this qigong style's succession from Bodhidharma to the Chinese general Li Jing via "a chain of Buddhist saints and martial heroes."[32] The work itself is full of anachronistic mistakes and even includes a popular character from Chinese fiction, the "Bushy Bearded Hero" (虬髯客), as a lineage master.[33] Literati as far back as the Qing Dynasty have taken note of these mistakes. The scholar Ling Tinkang (1757–1809) described the author as an 'ignorant village master'."[34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Monastery#Patron_saint





like i said no offense to you, but i cannot describe how it feels when fellow Chinese believe this. can i even care what non Chinese say about Chinese culture when Chinese ourself are convinced of lies? the situation is SO BAD and i dont know how to fix it.
 

ralphrepo

Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
3,966
Likes
0
Points
36
#11
please dont take this wrong way, but you just proved exactly what i was talking about. there are ZERO historical records that says shaolin monks learned kung fu from bodhidharma. the ORIGINAL claim, was bodhidharma saw the monk's weak state and left behind a manual called the Yi Jin Jing. the monks learned from the YJJ and develop their skills. THEN the claim became, shaolin monks were taught kung fu by bodhidharma. THEN the claim became, kung fu comes from india. good freakin lord. the lie got progressively worse and worse. see why i HATE this? :rl:...
This sort of reminds me of how some Chinese are persistent in claiming that spaghetti was 'invented' by China. While the process of making noodles was taken or learned from the Yuan (Mongols who occupied China at the time of Marco Polo) it was the Italians that developed their unique types of pasta dishes that the world knows of today. Likewise, even as Buddhism and certain fighting ideas may have been imported, Chinese culture adapted these 'foreign' skills and modified them with unique Chinese flairs. There are examples the world over of how simple ideas from one culture had then been readily adapted and significantly improved upon by others, often resulting in a product surpassing the utility of the original.

From experience, what I find is, that mostly these arguments come not from the impetus of, or desire for historical exploration, but unfortunately rather from nationalistic or ethnic sentiments; a sort of "we did this, and you didn't" puffery. A real historian will appreciate that various segments of mankind's culture had important input into the development and use of an invention. One might say that Chinese culture first derived gunpowder, but the United States, which wasn't even a nation when Chinese culture first started, was the first to land a man on the moon. However, it is within the entire continuum of man's accomplishments across multiple cultures, that the simplistic idea of thrust provided for in gunpowder would one day undergo the coordinated science needed for man to successfully breach unto the lunar landscape. Thus, IMHO, these types of arguments themselves are the meaningless chest pounding of those who think more of their personal claim to pride than the value of actual accomplishments.

As in: We're American, We Did This, URRAH! We're Chinese, We Did That, GA-YAO! LOL... such silliness. IMHO, history really doesn't care about such braggadocio, and frankly, neither do I.

[video=youtube;M8Hn3lDg8so]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Hn3lDg8so&feature=related[/video]

BTW, I saw this Terra Cotta (below) exhibition in New York recently. If anyone here gets the chance to go, it is a unique but time sensitive opportunity. Note: unfortunately, video recording or photography is not allowed. The show only runs through 26 August 2012:

[video=youtube;Ei86e-IedHE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei86e-IedHE[/video]

See Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/a...at-discovery-times-square.html?pagewanted=all

Sidebar: Wikipedia has long been suspected of being routinely edited by Chinese nationalists to reflect the PRC point of view. I would be hesitant to use it for anything involving real history.
 

Dan

Wtf are you doi-....
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
8,268
Likes
0
Points
36
#12
Obviously, I may be mistaken as I am:

1. Not an expert in that area
2. Trying to prove a point that 90% of people are not experts
3. Not Chinese

I stand corrected, but at the same time, sourcing Wikipedia isn't particularly the most academic process lol.

But regardless, I think the expression "you need to chill" still applies, which is the whole point of my posting here. One cannot be knowledgeable of everything, otherwise one would be considered all-knowing and god-like. We're just humans. And in relation to this topic, I sense more patriotism rather than historical accuracy. Sorry, that's just how I feel.

It's like saying I would flip out on you for not knowing something out of your area of expertise.
 

MissCheekS

Reconnaîssant ❤
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
8,816
Likes
0
Points
36
#13
this mv is one big joke... rihanna dressed up as a chinese princess, not working... i shouldve never watched that mv lol
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
240
Likes
0
Points
16
#14
Obviously, I may be mistaken as I am:

1. Not an expert in that area
2. Trying to prove a point that 90% of people are not experts
3. Not Chinese

I stand corrected, but at the same time, sourcing Wikipedia isn't particularly the most academic process lol.

But regardless, I think the expression "you need to chill" still applies, which is the whole point of my posting here. One cannot be knowledgeable of everything, otherwise one would be considered all-knowing and god-like. We're just humans. And in relation to this topic, I sense more patriotism rather than historical accuracy. Sorry, that's just how I feel.

It's like saying I would flip out on you for not knowing something out of your area of expertise.

yes its very typical for people to keep saying that about wikipedia even though they have had a very comprehensive citation system in for years. if one is serious, they would look at the actual citations, rather than make unsubstantiated claims about wikipedia. i wont be responding to such low level assertions. especially if they come with no real contributions to any topic at hand.

if you want bonus material, besides those of the actual historians who are named...

A Venerated Forgery: The Daoist Origins of Shaolin’s Famous Yijin Jing Manual
By Jim R. McClanahan


but as you can see, the point is lies have been perpetuated and spread because they were not challenged. so i will not "chill out". im not going to pretend a lie is the truth when i know better.




@Ralph

do you have any real contribution to the topic, like shaolin kung fu?

btw, i can defend China's claims in the South China Sea. i know about it about as extensively as i know about shaolin kung fu here. so if anybody feels like challenging me, make your move.
 

Dan

Wtf are you doi-....
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
8,268
Likes
0
Points
36
#15
yes its very typical for people to keep saying that about wikipedia even though they have had a very comprehensive citation system in for years. if one is serious, they would look at the actual citations, rather than make unsubstantiated claims about wikipedia. i wont be responding to such low level assertions. especially if they come with no real contributions to any topic at hand.

if you want bonus material, besides those of the actual historians who are named...

A Venerated Forgery: The Daoist Origins of Shaolin’s Famous Yijin Jing Manual
By Jim R. McClanahan


but as you can see, the point is lies have been perpetuated and spread because they were not challenged. so i will not "chill out". im not going to pretend a lie is the truth when i know better.




@Ralph

do you have any real contribution to the topic, like shaolin kung fu?

btw, i can defend China's claims in the South China Sea. i know about it about as extensively as i know about shaolin kung fu here. so if anybody feels like challenging me, make your move.
I totally respect your passion when it comes to your heritage. To a certain extent, I can appreciate how strongly positioned your posts are; I'm just trying to make the argument that this is simply human nature, something that's really difficult to persuade otherwise. So I personally think it's a waste of energy to argue against something that's unpersuadable, or in other words, a wall. I'm sure each of us would react the same way as you when it comes to things we are overwhelmingly passionate about. :)
 

negiqboyz

Active Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
4,340
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
North Pole
#18
Who cares? It appears to me that you think so highly of Chinese .. a Communist nationalist of sort .. perhaps you should go back to China.

Chinese history? All shitty ... after Mao .. nothing much is accurate. China would NOT have gotten to where it is today without the people whom educated from the west and else where that went back. Not everything you read online is accurate too .. there are no "solid" sources to a lot of stuffs you read online. Newspapers? A joke.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
240
Likes
0
Points
16
#19
Who cares? It appears to me that you think so highly of Chinese .. a Communist nationalist of sort .. perhaps you should go back to China.

Chinese history? All shitty ... after Mao .. nothing much is accurate. China would NOT have gotten to where it is today without the people whom educated from the west and else where that went back. Not everything you read online is accurate too .. there are no "solid" sources to a lot of stuffs you read online. Newspapers? A joke.
all i see is butthurt. its obvious YOU CARE. everything i said was fact and is backed up in the links. that is what bothers you the most. that i actually didnt make up anything. defeated, you can only ramble about communist and newspapers. you are desperate for a rebuttal, but all you really have is a fantasy that might make you feel better about the truth.

come back when you have actual points instead of showing me how hurt you are. any unbiased person can see you didnt actually address even one of my points in your post. its a person who wants to fight back, but doesn't have the knowledge to. must be frustrating for you huh. so you are stuck talking about nothing. your post is so meaningless and void of any substance; it could have been posted in damn near any China thread.

as for your comment on Chinese history, you have the guts to tell me your ethnic? if you are starting something i don't recommend you tell me your ethnic. if you are already hurt by my DEFENSE of Chinese history and culture; you will cry if i attack.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
177
Likes
0
Points
16
#20
LOL..another facepalm forum moment. I don't know who to defend on this thread....

But Crazyman, can I invite you over to the Philosophy & Religion section. I think Dan and I would have a lot of fun with you.
 
Top