the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Excellent video. Thank you.

Yes, it's a clear presentation that states what most of my Taiwanese teachers have said. The thing I found most interesting was that the head of the "Shaolin" section was a Chinese Muslim who did Chaquan (?). But, I'd like someone to explain why Chen style wasn't represented. Otoh, the fact that poverty forced many to remain in China when the communists took over implies that those who did had to at least pretend loyalty to the party.

Nice video man! It's an interesting thought experiment to think how TCMA might have developed if the Guoshu Guans or something like them had been allowed to persist and develop on the mainland instead of being summarily closed down

Steve James wrote: I'd like someone to explain why Chen style wasn't represented.

It seems that first you'd be connected to the Nationalist party, and someone in a "village" wouldn't be connected with a national political organization. Second, the taijiquan/xingyiquan/baguazhang area would be more connected to Yang style, but Fu Zhensong (bagua rep) learned Chen taijiquan as a kid, and later taijiquan from Sun and Yang Chengfu. So there would be a certain circle of people involved.

Yang Chengfu was named the Institute's head instructor of T'ai chi ch'uan; Sun Lu-t'ang was named head instructor of Xing Yi Quan; and Fu Chen Sung was named head instructor of Baguazhang.[6]

Fu was one of the heads of the institute, so having learned Chen style, Sun style, Yang style, xingyiquan from Sun, and bagua, maybe that already says something about what styles he would've found good to include. Maybe it's just about the circle of influence at the time.

The story is that they went all over China for the best martial artists. The Nationalists of the 1920s and 30s weren't in competition with another party; it was nationalism against the Japanese (specifically, but against foreign influence generally). There were well known Chen masters in Beijing by the 1920s. Of course, it's possible that the Chens never allied themselves directly with the nationalist. It's also true that the Yangs and Wus (who were also in the south) did ally themselves politically with the nationalists. So, when the communists came into power, the Chens didn't have any reason to flee.

And, of course, the current PRC doesn't seem to care what anyone has said about the Yangs, but is forcing Xu to apologize for insulting CXW.

Btw, I had a copy of the original manual for the 1928 Academy, and YCF was the highest paid instructor overall; but, Wu and Sun style tcc were also taught. Not to mention, YCF and Wu Jianquan were only at the Academy for a year. They were in Shanghai by the end of 1929. In fact, the old rumor is that they left because the Chens (i.e., Chen Fake) were finally getting attention.

Steve James wrote:Yes, it's a clear presentation that states what most of my Taiwanese teachers have said. The thing I found most interesting was that the head of the "Shaolin" section was a Chinese Muslim who did Chaquan (?). But, I'd like someone to explain why Chen style wasn't represented. Otoh, the fact that poverty forced many to remain in China when the communists took over implies that those who did had to at least pretend loyalty to the party.

As I said, Shaolin was just an umbrella term they used for all "external" styles, so no connection to actual Shaolin style.

Also, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of genuine support the communists had.

chenyaolong wrote:

Steve James wrote:Yes, it's a clear presentation that states what most of my Taiwanese teachers have said. The thing I found most interesting was that the head of the "Shaolin" section was a Chinese Muslim who did Chaquan (?). But, I'd like someone to explain why Chen style wasn't represented. Otoh, the fact that poverty forced many to remain in China when the communists took over implies that those who did had to at least pretend loyalty to the party.

As I said, Shaolin was just an umbrella term they used for all "external" styles, so no connection to actual Shaolin style.

Also, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of genuine support the communists had.

Yes, it was because of poverty the communists could take over, the poor outnumbered the intellectuals by far

Steve James wrote:The story is that they went all over China for the best martial artists. The Nationalists of the 1920s and 30s weren't in competition with another party; it was nationalism against the Japanese (specifically, but against foreign influence generally). There were well known Chen masters in Beijing by the 1920s. Of course, it's possible that the Chens never allied themselves directly with the nationalist. It's also true that the Yangs and Wus (who were also in the south) did ally themselves politically with the nationalists. So, when the communists came into power, the Chens didn't have any reason to flee.

And, of course, the current PRC doesn't seem to care what anyone has said about the Yangs, but is forcing Xu to apologize for insulting CXW.

Btw, I had a copy of the original manual for the 1928 Academy, and YCF was the highest paid instructor overall; but, Wu and Sun style tcc were also taught. Not to mention, YCF and Wu Jianquan were only at the Academy for a year. They were in Shanghai by the end of 1929. In fact, the old rumor is that they left because the Chens (i.e., Chen Fake) were finally getting attention.

Fascinating about the manual. In any case, it sounds like Yang, Fu, Sun, and others were more connected with whomever was in charge of assembling the institute for whatever reason, not necessarily anything against individual Chens or Chen style.

Fascinating about the manual. In any case, it sounds like Yang, Fu, Sun, and others were more connected with whomever was in charge of assembling the institute for whatever reason, not necessarily anything against individual Chens or Chen style.

That was probably through General Li Jinglin who was behind the academy and the recruitment of teachers. He was something like a retired warlord. Many of the appointments in the academy were made because of military connections --with the nationalists.

Btw, the Chinese "nationalists" could be no less ruthless than the Chinese "communists." So, it's not unexpected that many people --in China and elsewhere-- had grudges to settle with them because of their treatment. And, few people in China wanted to be associated with the nationalists after the communists took over (then and now). Of course, this is why there is a Taiwan.

We know that many who remained in the PRC who were suspected of being pro-nationalist, or whose families had supported the nationalists were at a disadvantage. The cultural revolution was an active attempt to wipe out their influence and replace it with Maoism.

One can argue endlessly whether the entirety of the Chinese people consider themselves pro-communist or not. They build stuff; we buy it. They have millionaires who buy American stuff; we have millions who buy their stuff.

Steve James wrote:But, I'd like someone to explain why Chen style wasn't represented.

I must have missed something. Why do you say Chen style wasn't represented?

Steve James wrote:Otoh, the fact that poverty forced many to remain in China when the communists took over implies that those who did had to at least pretend loyalty to the party.

I agree that poverty forced many to remain in China when the communists took over, but that in no way implies the second part of the sentence. Many Chinese were imprisoned and re-educated under the communists.

I must have missed something. Why do you say Chen style wasn't represented?

It wasn't taught at the Nanjing Academy.

Many Chinese were imprisoned and re-educated under the communists.

That's not exactly a contradiction of what I wrote. I totally agree that many Chinese were imprisoned --either for being disloyal to the party or for suspected disloyalty. My point there was that either one complied with the party or one suffered. However, I was responding to the point that many Chinese agreed with the communists and were Not pretending allegiance.

Otoh, were many Chen style masters imprisoned? My point about their being represented at the Nanjing Academy was that they were not on the political 'ins' with the nationalists. Nowadays, the gov't is protecting their representatives in a way that they hadn't done for practitioners of the other styles.

Steve James wrote:

I must have missed something. Why do you say Chen style wasn't represented?

It wasn't taught at the Nanjing Academy.

Thanks, I didn't get that from watching the video.

[edit]
I asked because Chen Ziming's manual was authorized by the Central Martial Arts Institute and the Henan Martial Arts Institute so there seems to be some relationship. Chen Zhaopei left Beijing in 1930 to teach taiji in Nanjing at the request of the Mayor and taught at City Hall and some associations.

Steve James wrote:

Many Chinese were imprisoned and re-educated under the communists.

That's not exactly a contradiction of what I wrote. I totally agree that many Chinese were imprisoned --either for being disloyal to the party or for suspected disloyalty. My point there was that either one complied with the party or one suffered. However, I was responding to the point that many Chinese agreed with the communists and were Not pretending allegiance.

OK

Steve James wrote:Otoh, were many Chen style masters imprisoned?

Some were, they were farmers, not share croppers and supported farmer's land rights. Some were persecuted during the cultural revolution.

Steve James wrote:My point about their being represented at the Nanjing Academy was that they were not on the political 'ins' with the nationalists.

As far as I know that's correct.

everything wrote:

Steve James wrote:The story is that they went all over China for the best martial artists. The Nationalists of the 1920s and 30s weren't in competition with another party; it was nationalism against the Japanese (specifically, but against foreign influence generally). There were well known Chen masters in Beijing by the 1920s. Of course, it's possible that the Chens never allied themselves directly with the nationalist. It's also true that the Yangs and Wus (who were also in the south) did ally themselves politically with the nationalists. So, when the communists came into power, the Chens didn't have any reason to flee.

And, of course, the current PRC doesn't seem to care what anyone has said about the Yangs, but is forcing Xu to apologize for insulting CXW.

Btw, I had a copy of the original manual for the 1928 Academy, and YCF was the highest paid instructor overall; but, Wu and Sun style tcc were also taught. Not to mention, YCF and Wu Jianquan were only at the Academy for a year. They were in Shanghai by the end of 1929. In fact, the old rumor is that they left because the Chens (i.e., Chen Fake) were finally getting attention.

Fascinating about the manual. In any case, it sounds like Yang, Fu, Sun, and others were more connected with whomever was in charge of assembling the institute for whatever reason, not necessarily anything against individual Chens or Chen style.

Yang family, by being the first to reach Beijing had the ear of those in power so they benefitted from that affiliation. It also helped that central government authorities through various representatives of Wu family (many were in government ministries along with the Zhao family, who married into the Yang family) so that says alot. No doubt that one style being more open to "sharing" (a relative term here) alos impacts societal acceptance at that time period.

Jmo, but I don't think it was the Yang connection to Beijing that was the thing. It was the Wu connection to the military, not the government. Ma Yueh Liang's family was also in the military (iirc, I heard his father was a commander at one of the Beijing gates. At any rate, I think it was Sun Lutang who was the most ardently "nationalist," and his student was Chen Weiming --who later went to study with YCF. Sun was close to the nationalist generals, especially Li Jinglin. That's how ma theory came to be part of a nationalist agenda, along with the idea of internal and external.