Originally posted by 7starmantis
I understand that some schools do not use "traditional" uniforms at all. Validity for that reason basicaly escapes me, but I do see it.
What is it about the validity of the practicality of training wear that escapes you? Shouldn't the clothing fit the endeavor? If I am swimming, I don't wear a parka. If I am biking, I don't wear loose clothing.
Let me clarify my statment of "traditional". In my school we do not wear full traditional CMA uniforms with the frog buttons and all for everyday training. However, we do not wear traditional FMA, or JMA, or any other system "clothing style". While we do not wear "traditional" in that sense, we do wear a "traditional" training uniform. We wear CMA pants with elastic at the bottom, not the straight leg type. We are allowed to wear school T-Shirts on some nights, others we use a jacket that is "traditional" in its look, but sturdy.
Then from my perspective, i.e. "traditional" CMA schools wearing the full Mandarin style jacket and pants, you would be "nontraditonal" yourself... I understand that at least you aren't wearing a uniform taken from another style or national culture, and I appreciate your point there. However, it does need mention that the "JMA" style uniform is in actuality very similar to Chinese clothing from before the Mandarin era... If you look at normal everyday clothing from quite a ways back, as well as the uniforms of the Shaolin monks (since everyone loves to go back to Shaolin as their origin in some manner), you will see that the shirt/blouse/jacket worn was of a wraparound/foldover style,
not of a button up style...
My school doesn't wear sashes at all.
And you aren't alone in that. We use sashes/belts for two purposes: 1) Primarily to perform continuous breathing training (when you are doing Reverse Breathing properly, your lower abdomen will press out against the sash/belt; that pressure gives you immediate feedback whether you are doing it properly or not); 2) to easily and rapidly separate training groups. We have no "rank" per se in Yiliquan... Just students and more senior students, no teachers at all as we firmly believe we are all continually learning.
So you see, I'm not speaking of xtremely "traditional" as you would think from watching some Kung Fu movie, I'm speaking of accepted or "traditional" wear for Kung Fu training.
And this is where you start to trip over your words... Traditional for "kung fu" as historically and culturally accepted or traditional as accepted in the US? If you look at the historical facts, wraparound jackets were commonplace in China. The button up jackets were not as commonly used until after Mao took over and instituted "uniforms" for the Communist Party... If you look at "traditional" in the context of what is accepted in the US, then you will have a tough go at stating exactly what that means. While you are allowed to wear t-shirts and pants, and
sometimes a school t-shirt, my school (and others I know of) would
never allow such leniency in codes of dress - it is the full Monty or nothing at all.
I understand that you are taking a very literal stand with the words "kung fu". However, you must in todays world and the past worlds define the specific CMA somehow. How would you propose?
Maybe with "Chinese Martial Arts." I am not taking a "literal stand" with the words, I am using them the way they are supposed to be used... If I told a student that they were learning "booger fu," knowing full well what "booger" means, but I tell the student that
we use the word "booger" to mean something different, don't you think that native speakers who
know what "booger" really means wouldn't be upset at its misuse and condemn those who misuse it? That is where I am coming from on the language topic... It is so common in the US (and elsewhere I'm sure) for people to use things the way they want with no concern for the proper use, because they are "expressing themselves" or some other equally nonsensical reason, that we begin to communally condone such misuse. I refuse to. Either use the language properly, or check your foreign terms at the door. I think that "Chinese Martial Arts" covers everything just fine.
Kung Fu is a term that has been used and will continue to be used to do specificaly that (define the specific CMA somehow).
But it fails to do just that! The terms
wu shu (which is far more appropriate, and is what is actually used "traditionally" in China)
kuo shu (used in Taiwan primarily) are far more "traditionally" accepted than kung fu is. So we have at least
three terms being bandied about and nobody can seem to agree on what it is they actually are doing!
Because the literal translation does not convey the exacticality of the system doesn't mean in todays world, the one you so adamantly portrayed in your post, we are bound by using terms to indentify, and Kung Fu is the term that identifies this system of CMA.
So if we are not bound to use the "traditional" terms, why are we bound to use the "traditional" clothing? Your argument is inconsistent on this. You are trying to say that we should continue using a particular set of clothing from the style's country of origin, but that the terms from the language of the style's country of origin can be picked and chosen as we see fit? Either one or the other... Either we keep 100% of the whole thing, or we pick and choose. Trying to argue that we need to do the former, while actually doing the latter is nothing short of hypocrisy.
No one is saying clothing is, "...somehow intrinsically tied in to the development of martial skills...".
I know that. I didn't intend to imply you (in particular) were, but there have been discussions about this issue on other fora where just such an issue came up. Essentialy, the other arguments were that without certain nationalities or certain other accoutrements you couldn't actually hope to learn CMA. Total bunk, but that was what was being said... I apologize if you took that in reference to yourself - such a meaning was not intended.
What I am saying is that traditional systems will inspire a sense of traditional clothing.
Which was why I made reference to kyudo and iaido. Kendo could be included, also, to a degree. They are highly traditional in their orientation (although in their present form they are only nearing about 100 years old; their predecessor arts are much older), and at least some of their art is keyed into the clothing they wear. But I don't believe that to be the case in CMA.
If you study a system and have no interest in its creation, or its traditions, I would propose that you are not ruly studying that system.
To a degree I would agree with you on this point. If a person fails to delve fully into the cultural context of their art, the linguistic background (to fully understand the terms being used to describe different aspects of their art), etc., then the students are
not truly studying that system, only the physical components of it. However, I think the people that go the extra mile are few and far between... To better understand CMA I have studied massage therapy, TCM, Chinese religion and philosophy, military strategy and history, and Chinese language. I continue to pursue these things as I continue to pursue my training, and in Yiliquan such ongoing training is required at higher levels, not just encouraged. In my karate training I continually ask questions to better understand the terminology being used. When I lived in Japan I ran my Japanese friends down in the hall continually, trying to better understand the language and nuances of certain phrases. You would be amazed at the level of misunderstanding because of this failure on the part of many instructors... If they knew what they were saying when they said it they would understand some things much better.
You said, "However, for those whose motivation is less to propagate a cultural idiosyncracy and more to develop self defense skills, what they wear is of little importance in terms of the legitimacy of the school". The legitimacy of the school no, the background of the instructor, yes.
The school is the outward manifestation of the teacher's efforts. If the legitimacy of the school is not in question because of the uniform worn by its students, then the legitimacy of the teacher's training is irrelevant. To validate his background, rather than make an assumption based on their uniform, questions could be asked to determine the reason for being "nontraditional." I think that would be a much fairer test than automatically shooting down a teacher because of what his students wear...
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this topic. I have enjoyed your comments and rebuttals, but neither of us appear to be willing to back down on our opinions.
Gambarimasu.
:asian:
).
