[size=“3”],“”[b] “”“”/b,[/size]
Frank,
Do a Chinese Google search and type in these three lots of characters and see what you get:
- only coming from you and people who knows nothing about CLF.
- lots of info and lots from Futshan
- again only your stuff.
See you are making things up and the internet is now full of misinformation coming from you, even in Chinese.
Why took down the last thread? It was just getting interesting how you do your research.
1806
1812“”
1820“”
1823
1832“”“”
1834“”
1836“”“”“”.18381840“”“”
1842“”“”
1845“”
“”“”“”“”“”“”“”
1854“”“”
1856“”“”
1864
1868“”“”“”“”“”
1875 “”“”
1916
1937“”“”
19721“”
Frank,
The above is the King Mui version of CLF history derived from the Chen family archive, one can see Chan Heung did participated in many revolutionary activities and why the name has to change from to “” and “”.
One can also appreciated after 30 years of non-public activities from 1937-1972 (Chinese civil war, Japanese invasion and Communist suppression), how important the forming of the “Chan Heung Memorial Association” was in Hong Kong.
The echoes of this event can still be felt in what people like Li Iu-Ling did in Australia and Wong Ha did in Canada, by promoting CLF and the memory of Chan Heung and what Chui Kwong Yuan is doing now (legacy of his father) with Futshan, by attempting to create an alternative history of CLF with Jeung Ah-Yim as the co-founder to rival Chan Heung.
History is driven by political and personal forces hidden behind the scene, without taking them into consideration, it is difficult to sort out the past and how it is affecting the present.
[QUOTE=extrajoseph;954793]attempting to create an alternative history of CLF with Jeung Ah-Yim as the co-founder to rival Chan Heung.
History is driven by political and personal forces hidden behind the scene, without taking them into consideration, it is difficult to sort out the past and how it is affecting the present.[/QUOTE]
the above can be said the same about your side of the family with chan heung,
creating an alternate history for chan heung. afterall, it was all heresay for gm chan yiu chi’s version of the history. he wasn’t there when chan heung first learnt kung fu.
The question we have to ask ourselves is which history came first? There were no mention of Ching Cho as a teacher of Jeung Ah-Yim before the early 70s and the myth started from Hong Kong. Why?
Chen Yiu-Chi version is not hearsay, because it came down through the family and is recorded in writing long before 1970.
Besides Chan Yiu-Chi, there are also King Mui records and government research done on the subject. CLF does not get to be accepted as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of China without a decent history attached to it.
Where are the primary sources for Ching Cho? There are none.
Where are the primary sources for Ching Cho? There are none.
See, you are a habitual liar EJ. The primary sources, the ONLY source with an abundant amount of information about the monk CHING CHO is found in the Hung Mun, which is MUCH MUCH bigger than your Chan Yiu Chi archives.
The Hung Mun is only an unreliable source to YOU because you are caught up behind the myths. Since you aren’t a Hung Mun member, you wouldn’t understand the symbology.
- only coming from you and people who knows nothing about CLF.
- lots of info and lots from Futshan
- again only your stuff.
Really? ok. i’ll let you tell it since you know it all. 
The above is the King Mui version of CLF history derived from the Chen family archive,
Now, tell me why there are so many different versions of YOUR CHAN FAMILY HISTORY again?
- only coming from you and people who knows nothing about CLF.
[SIZE=“5”][/SIZE]
lol…
Chen Yiu-Chi version is not hearsay, because it came down through the family and is recorded in writing long before 1970.
Is it because you are the Chan Family Rep that only the Chan family can pass down historyical information within their family? If not, what are you saying?
EJ…
I find it extremely hilarious that according to YOU Chan Heung was the only one allowed to do things…
You said Jeung Hung Sing couldn’t have used [SIZE=“4”][/SIZE] because it would get them in major trouble. Yet, Chan Heung WAS allowed to use [SIZE=“4”][/SIZE].
Chan Heung was the one involved with the Hung Mun, and not Jeung Hung Sing?
Chan Heung learned from the monk Ching Cho and not Jeung Yim from Ching Cho (Fong Dai Hung)?
- lots of info and lots from Futshan
What? from Chan Yiu Chi’s archives? TELL ME SOMETHING…why should we believe YOUR fabricated Family archives over our own? why?
Also, Howard Choy stated Jeung Hung Sing had to change his name because it was causing tooo much heat on him and the school…what name was he using before he changed it? And, what did he change it to?
See Frank, at least you’re not now claiming a legitimate historical research stance and are now coming from a genuinely political angle. As you still seem to be struggling with what constitutes a primary source, that’s probably for the best.
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;954819]I
You said Jeung Hung Sing couldn’t have used [SIZE=“4”][/SIZE] because it would get them in major trouble. Yet, Chan Heung WAS allowed to use [SIZE=“4”][/SIZE].
[/QUOTE]
There you go again, Frank, showing your ignorance about the Chinese language, even though the character is used in both cases, they mean completely different things when the two characters are read together.
If (meaning Victory to the Ming) is used in Chan Heung’s time, he would have been locked up straight away, whereas is a name of a deity, so it is beyond the emperor’s suspicion, even though they have the same sound.
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;954819]
Also, Howard Choy stated Jeung Hung Sing had to change his name because it was causing tooo much heat on him and the school…what name was he using before he changed it? And, what did he change it to?[/QUOTE]
It went from in King Mui to " in Jiangmen, Guangzhou and HK and then finally to in Futshan, all that to avoid trouble with the politics of the time, because Jeung Ah-Yim and his students were well known as fighters and they like to fight in public and that means making troubles for themselves.
But is never used even though that was the intentional meaning behind the three different names with the same sound, because that would be just asking for trouble. No one was that stupid, but that does not stop you from showing your stupidity in insisting that they were that stupid.
[QUOTE][/QUOTE]
is in reference to Hung Wu…dont act like i don’t know.
[/QUOTE]
is in reference to Hung Wu…dont act like i don’t know.
[QUOTE]If (meaning Victory to the Ming) is used in Chan Heung’s time,
See how you’re lying? mean HUNG VICTORY not Victory to the Ming.
Now matter how you try to twist it, you cannot win here.
Primary source defined: Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied
So, if i have actual literature from the hung mun (not a book someone wrote about hung mun) which talks about Ching Cho, has depictions of him, rituals, and history that originates directly from the lodge the monk Ching Cho created, how is my source not a primary one?
While mine comes directly from those who founded the Hung Mun, your primary source comes from the 3rd generation disciples who didn’t document the history correctly.
If you can’t figure that out from what you’ve just wrote, you’re clearly not going to get it. Seriously Frank, do some evening classes.
figures…
you got nothin…
The question we have to ask ourselves is which history came first?
oh, you must mean which one was written down first!!!
Well, since Chan Heung didn’t document his forms, history, and what not but it was documented by the third generation disciples…
I’ll continue to believe in my lineage…thank you but NO THANK YOU…
So essentially you’re all fighting over a name right?
Because the only facts that remain is Chan Heung was one of Jeurng Ah Yim’s Sifu.
They each of their own lines of lineage.
Now it just seems like a popularity contest.
Because Jeurng Ah Yim out lived Chan Heung right? How come no issues were made at the time? OR maybe none was necessary
Sounds like it’s all in the name and whoever lay claims first or made it popular wins.
So essentially you’re all fighting over a name right?
nah, it’s all over history. obviously both sides DON’T agree, so all is not good in the hood.
Because the only facts that remain is Chan Heung was one of Jeurng Ah Yim’s Sifu.
Right. never denied that. no hung sing disciple ever would.
but, Jeung Hung Sing was a short time disciple of Chan Heung from 1836 to 1841. he spent more time under, and completed what he learned from the Monk Ching Cho. That can’t be said about Jeung Hung Sing chan fam CLF training.
Now it just seems like a popularity contest.
Nah, all it is is one family telling their history which conflicts with the 3rd generation accound of MY lineage and them having a hissy fit.
How come no issues were made at the time?
because they all knew then they’d get busted out for telling lies. Chan Family history of the 3rd generation is where it all goes down hill in regards to my lineage.
and we (ME) are just telling our history as its passed down, and researched, and they are the one’s making a big stink about stuff.
you don’t see us saying "Prove chan heung learned from Choy Fook? how do we know there was a choy fook? a Chan Yuen Wu? epecially since the truth about the Chan Heung picture being fake it makes us wonder what else is fake from the Chan Family archives? How do we know Chan Heung really created the Nine Dragon Trident? …
NO, we don’t care about that sh1t cause it has nothing to do with OUR lineage.
in regards to the HUNG SING KWOON FUT SAN history, the primary source is and should always be the Hung SING KWOON FUT SAN branch, and not a branch that wasn’t by our founder. Hung Sing kwoon is the primary source for Hung Sing, and Chan Family archives would be Secondary.