Talk:Silat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Silat article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] TRUTH ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF SILAT/PENCAK

It's been a few weeks since the silat articles were divided into three and the question of whtther this was justified is largely over. Nevertheless, I thought I should bring up related points because I think it would improve the articles. First of all, silat's country of origin should be stated appropriately according to the articles. In the pencak silat article the only country should be Indonesia. In the article clumsily-named "Silat (Malaysian martial arts)", the countries should be Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and Brunei since it's supposed to be about the Malaysian forms of silat. Other countries like the Philippines could only be included if the title was re-named Silat Melayu which I would suggest doing. The origin of silat is not included in the history parts of any of the articles. All silat forms share the common beginnings in Sumatera which came through the Indians and Chinese. This article only glances at it by saying "There is evidence that Chinese and Indian martial arts influenced silat". This is a gross understatement since the Indians and Chinese provided the very basis for all of Malay culture. Can you imagine if a similar quote was applied to karate? Without the combined influences, silat would have probably more closely resembled Filipino styles. The article goes on to say that silat was spread along with Islam. This is very ignorant since silat dates back long before any Malay had even heard of the religion. Indon, I think you over-reacted about my changing the definition of kuntao. You could have just reverted, given your reason for doing so and I'd get the point. You didn't need to accuse me of vandalism. Although you have convinced me that I was wrong, I think that people should be more explicit in the books they quote from and not just assume that any book is an authoritative text. IMHO, Sheik Shamsuddin's book "The Malay Art of Self-defence" is an awful work which I wouldn't recommend to anybody, not even those with no prior knowledge of silat whom the book was aimed at. However there are very few English books about silat and anyway, I'm certainly in no position to stop people from quoting him. Another issue I think should be addressed is the modern Muslim interpretation of silat but that's another story. Morinae 09:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's even an awful work of an editor trying to push his/her own interpretation just popped-up from their heads saying they are more authoritative than somebody who had published their own books. You (morinae) is just anybody else in Wikipedia, an anonymous editor, no less and no higher authority without any sources. Try to understand WP:V, read letters by letters before smacking somebody has an awful job of writing book. Who do you think you are saying that a book has no value at all? — Indon (reply) — 12:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Indon, aren't the guidelines to "assume good faith" and "be polite"? I don't think your harsh criticism of me is warranted since I never claimed to be anything more than another editor here. What I said about Sheik's book was, as noted, just my opinion. I don't think that any of what he wrote was wrong per se but it was hardly comprehensive or conclusive. And for your information I wasn't just writing what popped up in my head. Almost everything I write on the silat articles can be verified by one of Don Draeger's texts or some Malay book but I usually don't keep track of where they come from which I guess is my main weakness here. Can you be more specific about what I wrote that offends you so much? I already said that the current definition of kuntao is fine so there shouldn't be any hard feelings. Morinae (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Morinae, not verifiable means popping up from your head. That's simply said. — Indon (reply) — 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silat/Pencak Was Originated from Animal(s) and Nature Acts

Hello guys,

Please read this website to know the true facts about the origin of Silat/Pencak.

This is the link http://www.kpsnusantara.com/rapid/rapid2.htm


For your information, Silat is Malay/Indonesian's pure martial art.It didn't come from any foreign influences such as Chinese and Indian. It was created from the animal(s) and nature acts.

For example, in Malaysia there is a kind of Silat that is called "Silat Sendeng". The Silat Sendeng was created based on the acts of a tortoise(kura-kura in Malay).

He is old man. He once appeared on a tv news in Malaysia. The creator of Silat Sendeng is still alive(the time I watched the news). This is not a myth. This is a fact directs from the creator of "Silat Sendeng".

One more thing, Silat existed long before the arrival of Islam to Malay Peninsular/Archipelagos.

So the conclusion is Silat or Pencak is originally Malay creation from the animal(s) and nature acts not from Chinese and Indian influences.

Please correct this article.

P/S: Please forgive me if I aggrieved the reader of this discussion site. I didn't mean it. About the bold, I just using the bold to highlight my points.

Mr. Knows (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think you can add to the article, you are welcome to edit it. You can make changes as you see fit, but your edits may be edited mercilessly by others. --Pumpmeup 05:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks to you Mr Pumpmeup. But I think let the others do that.

I just want to add about my previous comment. About the name of the Silat which I wrote as Silat Sendeng. Based on my memory, the name is Silat Sendeng. But after I checked it on internet I found several kind of Silat Sendeng. There are Silat Sendeng Dua Beradik(Two Brothers Sendeng Silat-originated from Paya Kumbuh, Sumatra Indonesia) and Seni Silat Sendeng Muar(Johor, Malaysia). Both are not Silat Sendeng which I meant before. The Silat Sendeng I meant is a kind of Silat created by a man(maybe in East Coast Region, West Malaysia) which he created from the movements of tortoise.

That's all.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Knows (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why three articles for the same thing?

I'm sorry that I've missed the discussion on this subject (could anyone point me to it?) but I don't think I completely understand the reason to create three different pages for (Pencak) Silat... After all, though some styles really differ from each other, most styles are at least slightly alike... Also, some information (the same) occurs in two of the pages (like the weapons etc.) so I'm afraid that I don't see the reason... Chingchuanchiu (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The History Section Must Be Corrected

Hello guys,

I think this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencak which is about the "history of Silat" should be accepted as the best/accurate facts to rewrite the section of "History" in this "Silat" article.

Mr. Pumpmeup, maybe you can rewrite the "History" section in this article by referring to "History" section in "Pencak Silat" article.

Thanks.

Mr. Knows (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Knows that the history section needs a lot of correcting because it's just made of various quotes strung together with little relation to each other and not much actual information. For example the sentence saying that silat was spread along with Islam gives the impression that silat was uncommon or didn't exist before the arrival of Islam which we know is not true. And I don't see the need to point out "Silat has been acknowledged as a genuine Malay martial art". This sounds very defensive as if people are afraid of non-Malays claiming silat for themselves. However, I must disagree with Mr Knows on his statement that silat is "purely Malay" without any outside influence. This idea seems overly Malay-centric. First of all, what does "purely Malay" mean? Malays are actually a diverse group if you don't subscribe to the narrow view of confining the race to Muslims of the Malay Archipelago. In fact, Malays are descended from the Proto-Malay orang asli of Java who inter-married with Chinese migrants that came to Southeast Asia in large numbers at various points in history. This theory of the Malay origin also applies to various other ethnic groups. Therefore Thais, Filipinos, Khmers, Chams and the Li of China are also Nusantara Malays. All the peoples and countries of Southeast Asia have always been closely connected. It can be hard to make distinctions between some of their shared cultures. For example, should wayang kulit (shadow puppetry) be considered Indonesian, Malaysian or Thai? Or should it be considered Chinese since they brought shadow puppets to the region in the first place? Martial arts in Vietnam show influences from kungfu, kickboxing, silat, Khmer armed combat and similarities to Filipino and Indian styles. This shows just how close were the ties that bound back then. Does any of this make those martial arts less Vietnamese? I don't think so. From inside Southeast Asia, silat has many similarites to krabi krabong, banshay, bokator and others. And there's no question about the Indian and Chinese influence on silat. To deny it would be as illogical as saying that English developed independently of Greek. Let me remind you that India had penetrated nearly every aspect of culture in Southeast Asian countries all the way from Indonesia to Laos. Silat is an important part of Malay culture and I don't see how that would have been left untouched. Anyway, silat masters themselves have always maintained that their art has been influenced by India and China. There's also a wealth of evidence proving them right. Only today are the old ties being cut. It's interesting to see just how far people will go to avoid being associated with what they see as un-Malay. For example, all the main theories about the etymology of the term pencak silat are written in the silat articles except the one saying that pencak might come from a southern Chinese language or that the word silat may be related to silambam. Similarly, two silat articles have a list of weapons and I didn't mind when I saw that some like the Chinese sword had been removed. But I don't see why the kipas (folding fan) can't be included. Someone must have thought that it didn't belong in a silat article because it was invented in China. It should be accepted that Malay culture, silat included, is one which has benefited from the knowledge of others. Silat in its final form would have been very different without the influence of China and India but that is nothing to be ashamed of. The Chinese have influenced the Japanese and Koreans. The Indians have influenced the Nepalese and Burmese. No culture developed without any help at all. Besides, this doesn't mean that Malays are incapable of creating anything themselves. Every country in Indo-China had been influenced by India and China but their martial arts didn't turn out the same. So yes, silat is purely Malay but that doesn't change the fact that it was influenced by Indian and Chinese martial arts.Morinae (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many missing things

There are a lot of things missing from this. Angie Y. (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)