Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I accept the challenge of displaying institutions which support my POV that Bodhidharma contributed to the establishment of shaolin in order to confirm that multiple sources, from institutions and authors around the world, do cite the same thing.

Not good enough, never was and still is not.
If it's not peer-reviewed, it just doesn't cut it.

The resulting poverty and the lack of patronage resulted n the fall of the Ksatriyas, the martial artists.

SO CITE A SOURCE FOR IT. Can you seriously not find a scholarly citation about the decline of patronage under the British Raj?
JFD 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The set of sources including :-

  • OFFICIAL websites from martial arts institution
  • OFFICIAL websites from institutions involved in propogating martial arts in actual learning, with dojos and everything
  • New York Times and the BBC
  • Authors from throughout the world, scores of them, including traditional and contemporary ones
  • The official Shaolin website
  • Martial arts organisers, teachers and practitioners

Will be used, that ought to be good enough for anybody and does cut it. Apart of the three old guys and the three books you mentioned, I doubt that you have any other sources to demonstrate the extent of your train of thought.

SO CITE A SOURCE FOR IT. Can you seriously not find a scholarly citation about the decline of patronage under the British Raj?

I already did, the importance of the patronage is described in the Alters book to which i provided a link, I also provided links to the articles in which the british killed Kshatriyas themselves and removed the Royal Kings, thereby removing the royal patronage, if you want a comprehensive list of Kshatriyas invaded and deposed by the british, and the Royal kings replaced by the crown, I can move swiftly enough to give you more internal links of the invading british doing just that, killing Kshatriyas, deposng local Royals. Lemme know.Freedom skies 07:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again freedom skies, it is almost as though we are not communicating... you have cited private websites that support your views... i and JFD have cited better private websites that support our views... you can't cite private websites... you keep on talking about the one shaolin website that you cite as the "true" shaolin website! when there are about 300 out there that claim to be the true one! not only that, we have cited books that support our views.... however, it is difficult to have a balanced article when you keep on removing our references and only allow one sentence in the article that support a different view on indian martial arts and its connection to the rest of asian martial arts... further, some of those newspaper articles that you quoted and websites that you quoted actually support our views... Kennethtennyson 01:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

USER INDRANCROOS was told that writing in big black bold letters alleging that someone is a racist might be considered uncivil by many and against wikipedia policy. Kennethtennyson 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as far a peers opposing Freedom skies views, it is basically and only from two people namely you and JFD, not the whole world.

I already knew that kenny was crazy, though. I always knew that crazy Kenny and the guy he awarded a barnstar to now, for things he did months ago were the only opposition against the New York Times, BBC, Martial arts community, pioneers, authors.....you get it.
They've been trying to hold me off by doing every routine, play on words, falshback, y'know.
Anyways, interactions with JFD have often been productive, and he asks legitimate questions, and has accomadated me in the past for which I'm appreciative.
Kenny though, plain scares me, I won't let a guy like that near me even after all the boxing and everything, for obvious reasons of psychopathphobia. Freedom skies 07:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also provided links to the articles in which the british killed Kshatriyas themselves and removed the Royal Kings, thereby removing the royal patronage,

The links you provided were to Wikipedia articles—and Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source. Moreover, those articles were entirely unreferenced.

What the article needs from you is this:

  • Indian royalty provided patronage to many endeavors, not just pehlwani.
  • Somewhere out there, someone must have written an academic paper, or a chapter, or it might even just be a sentence or paragraph in another work, where he or she says, "The institution of royal patronage in India declined as a result of the British Raj."
  • Because, judging from the Alter, between the royal patrons he lists and the story of Gama, it sounds like royal patronage was alive and well.

Look, I've already given you a scholarly source that pins the decline of IMA, or at least kalarippayattu, on the introduction of firearms and how the introduction of Western military and police practices disrupted the livelihoods of the martial castes.

If you don't wish to use it, that's fine. You seem determined to attribute the decline of IMA to British disruption of royal patronage, but you have to cite a source for it. And other Wikipedia articles—especially those who don't cite sources themselves—will not do.
JFD 12:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to use the sources you cite to demonstrate the popularity of the Bodhidharma legend.

Quite another to demonstrate its historicity.

Do not confuse the two.

For example, it doesn't matter how widespread the story of tea growing from Bodhidharma's severed eyelids gets, that's never going to make it history.

It's one thing when a martial artist presents the Bodhidharma legend as a story that was passed down to him, and quite another when specialists in history ask the question, "Did Bodhidharma create the martial arts?" and proceed to research the question in depth.

All of the sources I cite have researched the question in depth.

You have yet to present a single source that does so.

To present the Bodhidharma legend as incontrovertible historical fact on the basis of its popularity is intellectually dishonest.

If you want to say that Bodhidharma is a popular figure in the folklore of East Asia and the martial arts, that's one thing.

If you want to say that the Bodhidharma legend is historical fact, cite a scholarly source for it.

But don't try to say the story is true because it's popular. That's fallacious reasoning and you know it.
JFD 12:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies, you should really watch out for what you put in big black bold letters about other people. Write another title like that and it's called vandalism... anyways, you're taking what i wrote out of context... first of all, the removal of bobby jindal occured late at night after a few beers and really, you must agree that bobby jindal really is not the most attractive person in the world. look at the guy's face! second, i did not state that i believe that the indian martial arts came from the middle east... nor have i ever written or edited a wikipedia article to that effect. what i did state was that the sources YOU quoted stated that the indian martial arts came from the middle east and yet you are not willing to put that on the last page. If you did your homework, and looked at the history of greek wrestling, the greek statues, pictures, sculptures and greek writing describes activities similar to greco-roman wrestling... pankration or something like that was what the greeks called it. as far as I can tell, you are the one who is prejudiced from your statements about the british destroying all martial arts in india and so forth along with you stating that you don't believe someone's scholarship is worthy because they are white. Anyways, either indran cross is the same person as freedom skie OR indran cross is the same person as bakasuprman. Kennethtennyson 01:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indran croos and Freedom skies are two different people.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither. If you have reasons to suspect we are the same person go to WP:RFCU and place your rats there.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Kennethtennyson 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Notifying a two day leave

Should'nt even take two days, just a jump in and jump out trip of sorts. Will answer as soon as I come back. Freedom skies 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you are not the person who wrote that crazy letter up there then i do apologize... regardless, i warned the user on being more civil... oh, and i have no interest in finding out where you live... Kennethtennyson 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you are not the person who wrote that crazy letter up there then i do apologize... regardless, i warned the user on being more civil... oh, and i have no interest in finding out where you live... Kennethtennyson 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, had enough

ok indran croos, i've sort of had enough of this... you need to look at what you are quoting... i was quoting off memory but i went to the page and now you can also... go to march 26 2006 01:21:24 where i made my statement while i was slightly inebriated... LOOK AT THE PAGE!... his picture is still there.... there is an in politics section but now that I look at it and remember... i didn't move it to the in politics section... i moved it to the definition section where the word... INDIAN SUBCONTINENT was placed... so scroll your eyes to the left... that is where his picture is next to the the word INDIAN SUBCONTINENT to match the picture...and i moved michelle wie's picture to the top... who i think is hotter than bobby jindal... and i think you would agree she is hotter than bobby jindal. now end this discussion and accusation. Kennethtennyson 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it settle this argument to everyone's satisfaction if I moved a picture of Padma Lakshmi to the top of the Asian American page?
JFD 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
this has nothing to do with the page... it has to do with me and with indran croos being childish... i suggest we leave the page alone... it currently has a nice smattering of different asian americans... filipino, indian, chinese...Kennethtennyson 15:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

more scholars to add

we should add paul elliot and j.a.g. roberts and meir shahar to the list of specialists in martial arts history, ie. historians who do not believe in this theory or even in the existence of any portion of the bodhidharma legend. j.a.g. roberts discounts the fact that bodhidharma even contributed to zen. Kennethtennyson 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone

I've been asked to have a look at this discussion. While I agree that generally the martial arts are a tendentious subject (go figure), we don't have to be so when reporting them. It is possible to report legendary stories as stories (whether polemic, didactic, nationalist, etc.) without asserting they are true. Our article on Zhang Sanfeng can serve as one example.

I would like all the editors to acquaint themselves with WP:AGF, WP:Civility and especially WP:NPA. This means using words like "crazy", unfounded accusations of threats and direct threats towards other editors are out. I will from now warn editors who do so, and then apply blocks where necessary if the warnings don't work. We have to decide if we are scholars or gang members. --Fire Star 火星 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Firestar, and replies

Surprising, JFD.

Now you're bringing arguments that you know are wrong to the table to get me caught in doing what was never disputed in the first place, surprising and now I've begun to realize how the barnstar changes an academic. You're just attempting to cover up for kenny, to try and legitimize his so-called-arguments.

You said "I prefer to let Zarrilli, Pillai, and Barbosa speak for themselves.

The earliest recorded evidence of Kalaripayyattu date from Portuguese descriptions during the latter 16th-17th centuries and becoming less prominent after the British outlawed it during the 18th and 19th centuries CE. It has recently been reinvigorated in the last few decades due to the general worldwide interest in martial arts." to Kenny on 06:55, 15 June 2006.""

You freaking knew that (and I quote) "the British outlawed it during the 18th and 19th centuries CE", and yet you questioned the legitimacy of "The Decline of martial practices" portion.

Wow, guess when you tick one of the barnyard couple, the other goes after you all the way, huh ???

Anyways, and the importance of Royal patronage to Pehlwani is described in the Alter's citation, Royal patronage which went as the british controlled India and replaced the local kings by the crown (what exactly are you asking me to cite here ?? that the british never killed Kshatriya kings ?? or did'nt replace the local rulers with the crown ?? Yes they did and with the replacing of local rulers went the patronage that they gave to many arts, martial or otherwise.). Microscopic riyasats like Datia and Gwalior collaborated with the british as they were too weak to actually fight them, their local traditions survived.

Because, judging from the Alter, between the royal patrons he lists and the story of Gama, it sounds like royal patronage was alive and well.

The sentiment in that time was every victory Gama had was a victory against the british, see the citation.

As for Datia, the british did'nt wipe out but collaborated with it, these states were not conquered but treaties signed and revenues collected, cultures remaining almost intact. Similar examples are Gwalior etc., The india that was conqured by the British, maratha, sikh empires, there rulers were replaced by the crown, which could not care less for providing any patronage to local arts.

  • Joeseph alter's citation, on how important the patronages are was provided by me.
  • Do I seriously have to provide a citation for "the british replacing local rule with the crown" and "the british conquest" ?? Do you not believe that the British took over India ??? for 200 years. If you want to have a look for yourself so badly just go to these sites. [1][2][3][4] I have come to expect hollow arguments and tactics of delay but arguing that the british never conquered India by force is just too obvious of a delay tactic.

Add 2+2, importance of patronage and the removal of it. Now, if you want books, run the same keywords thorugh Google book search or JSTOR.

You said "I prefer to let Zarrilli, Pillai, and Barbosa speak for themselves.
 The earliest recorded evidence of Kalaripayyattu date from Portuguese descriptions during the latter 16th-17th centuries and becoming less prominent after the British outlawed it during the 18th and 19th centuries CE. It has recently been reinvigorated in the last few decades due to the general worldwide interest in martial arts." to Kenny on 06:55, 15 June 2006.""

Had you quoted that message in full it would have read:

I prefer to let Zarrilli, Pillai, and Barbosa speak for themselves.
The earliest recorded evidence of Kalaripayyattu date from Portuguese descriptions during the latter 16th-17th centuries and becoming less prominent after the British outlawed it during the 18th and 19th centuries CE. It has recently been reinvigorated in the last few decades due to the general worldwide interest in martial arts.
Referring to Portuguese descriptions becomes redundant with the specific citation of Barbosa. As for the rest, I've never encountered claims of a ban under the Raj. Can we get a cite on that?

– JFD, 06:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff.[5]

The normal text is me. That second sentence in italics is code from the Kalarippayattu article pasted on to Kennethtennyson's Talk Page so that I could ask him to provide sources for the statement that there was a ban under the Raj.

And notice, I asked Kennethtennyson for sources just like I ask you for sources.

what exactly are you asking me to cite here ??

This:

with the replacing of local rulers went the patronage that they gave to many arts, martial or otherwise.

That is exactly what I want you to cite.

Add 2+2, importance of patronage and the removal of it.

"Adding 2+2" is original research.

The rajas of Aundh and Miraj were not the only royal patrons of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Maharaja of Baroda, raja of Kohalpur, a number of the rajas of Indor, and the rajas of Patiala, Jodhpur, and Datiya were all strong supporters of wrestling as a way of life.

– Joseph S. Alter, The Wrestler's Body: Identity and Ideology in North India, pp. 75–76

And, as I pointed out before, according to Alter, the institution of royal patronage was alive and well during the British Raj.

if you want books, run the same keywords thorugh Google book search or JSTOR.

If you want to add this material to the article, that's your job.

Wow, guess when you tick one of the barnyard couple, the other goes after you all the way, huh ???

Shiva's Trident and Bakaman have been quiet lately. Did something happen to them?
JFD 20:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The set of sources including :-

  • OFFICIAL websites from martial arts institution
  • OFFICIAL websites from institutions involved in propogating martial arts in actual learning, with dojos and everything
  • New York Times and the BBC
  • Authors from throughout the world, scores of them, including traditional and contemporary ones
  • The official Shaolin website
  • Martial arts organisers, teachers and practitioners

I won't narrow my sources down ONE bit, because the thought of Bodhidharma contributing to the cause of martial arts is that widespread. Of course, that's in case of a challenge, in which case this asking me to narrow my sources down will be a moot point.

Freedom skies, you should really watch out for what you put in big black bold letters about other people.

Look who's talking.

anyways, you're taking what i wrote out of context

Look who's talking again.

first of all, the removal of bobby jindal occured late at night after a few beers and really, you must agree that bobby jindal really is not the most attractive person in the world. look at the guy's face! second

Wow !! and you were surprised that I was disgusted by your past actions ??? ??

i did not state that i believe that the indian martial arts came from the middle east... nor have i ever written or edited a wikipedia article to that effect. what i did state was that the sources YOU quoted stated that the indian martial arts came from the middle east and yet you are not willing to put that on the last page

Let's chart a route for all these arts.

We'll compile a list of arts.

Then chart from alpha to omega, since you seem to be ready to endorse the content of these sites.

Lemme Know.

If you did your homework, and looked at the history of greek wrestling, the greek statues, pictures, sculptures and greek writing describes activities similar to greco-roman wrestling... pankration or something like that was what the greeks called it.

Gawd !! did you just equate pankration with Greco ???

WTF ??

Pankration and Greco ??

God, I know both of them in detail, I kinda contributed to the articles on Pancrase and greco here and that's personal attack removed

you are the one who is prejudiced from your statements about the british destroying all martial arts in india and so forth along

I never said that, the sense is that systemtic takeovers of the Kshatriyas , the outlawing of martial arts, the killing of Kshatriyas in battlefield contributed to the overall decline of IMAs. You just take what I have to say grossly out of context personal attack removed

you don't believe someone's scholarship is worthy because they are white

Kenny more "white people" both in the US and the UK are willing to go the distance even before I ask them, I have more tried and tested "white" friends than peole who've heard of you.

Plus please point me to where I said that Kenny. I'm curious.

Anyways, either indran cross is the same person as freedom skie OR indran cross is the same person as bakasuprman

He's not me. Nobody's me but me.

Freedom skies 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Latest Reply

Here, did'nt take any time at all. I can also provide more books on request. [6][7][8][9][10][11]

And here you'll find kingdoms which had their kings , who fought the british, replaced by the british crown.[12][13][14][15]

Indian arts being preserved in a microscopic riyasat which signed an agreement with the british, thereby retaining living Royal native kings to provide patronage is one thing, the elimination by force of entire empires like Maratha empire, Sikh confederacy and the killing and replacement of their living Royal kings with the distant British crown, killing scores of Maratha and Rajput Kshatriya warriors in the process, leaving no living royal at all to provide patronage, amongst other things, is another.

And you'll of course, see that royal patronage, when provided comes in extremely useful to the practitioners of martial arts, as described by Alters citing microscopic riyasats, which unlike entire empires were lucky enough to retain their living Royal local kings to provide royal patronage, amongst other things.

Anyways, you should also like this one in particular.

Brutal and effective, kalarippayat thrived for centuries until the British colonial government banned it in 1804. [16]

On request, I can get more of those too. Freedom skies 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sample code

Indian martial arts declined as Western colonialism disrupted the livelihoods of India's martial castes.

Rajputs who sought service with rulers as their ancestors had done found their sources of patronage limited by British restrictions; unable to find employment in their traditional line of work, some joined the Pindari.<ref>{{cite book | last = Bayly | first = C.A. | title = Indian Society and the making of the British Empire | origyear = 1988 | edition = Sixth printing | year = 2002 | publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge | id = ISBN 0521386500 | pages = 103}}</ref>

Kalarippayattu underwent a period of decline after the introduction of firearms and especially after the full establishment of British colonial rule in the 19th century.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Zarrilli, P. | year = 1992 | title = To heal and/or harm: The vital spots (marmmam/varmam) in two south Indian martial traditions--Part I: Focus on Kerala's kalarippayattu | journal = Journal of Asian Martial Arts | volume = 1 | issue = 1 }}</ref>

More European modes of organizing police, armies and governmental institutions, and the increasing use of firearms, gradually eroded the need for traditional martial training associated with caste-specific duties.<ref>{{cite book | last = Zarrilli | first = Phillip B. | title = When the Body Becomes All Eyes: Paradigms, Discourses and Practices of Power in Kalarippayattu, a South Indian Martial Art | year = 1998 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford}}</ref>

Brutal and effective, kalarippayat thrived for centuries until the British colonial government banned it in 1804. [17]

I'm going to see if I can find someone who actually has this book.
The person whom I had hoped might have the book, doesn't.
JFD 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

we never disagreed with you freedom skies on the decline of some indian martial arts to the british... actually in my past edits, i have stated that various indian martial arts have declined due to the british... the disagreement was in the statement that "the british were instrumental in the decline of all indian martial arts" without a mention of other causes of the decline. It is a very POV statement. in the end, it's a matter of degrees. you as an engineer should know the difference between degrees of statement... the same can be said of mullayuddha... you can state if you wish that it is a martial art of the ancients but you have to give us the right to state that there is evidence out their suggesting that it could be just a generic term for wrestling.Kennethtennyson 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

JFD's 2 cents

What I care about is that editors cite reliable sources for the material they add—for controversial issues, that means scholarly sources—and that they don't misrepresent those sources *cough*AlexDossFelineMD[18]*cough*
Each and every Wikipedia editor has the right to delete material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced—that is, the source cited does not verify the text in question—without being subjected to accusations of vandalism or racism.
The burden of proof falls on the editor who wishes to add material, not on the editor who wishes to remove material that is unsourced.

Western colonialism was such a catastrophic and transformative event for India that of course it affected Indian martial practices. But in order to attribute it to specific mechanisms, be it economic obsolescence or the death of patrons in wars with the British, we still need to cite reliable sources.
JFD 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)