WCK Origin theories?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
121

Are you teaching six gates five lines yet???

Mate, I’m teaching eight gates seven lines. Some day the rest of the world will catch up. It’s a numbers game and he with the most wins the race.

Stupid comment? Yeah but so is this d1ck measuring contest about who has the better history. I’m still (!) waiting on my book to get the HFY low down, While IMO Hendrik’s hypotheses are no more than that. Rene co-wrote an excellent book for its time which, ammog other things, brought HFY and Gee Sifu to the attention of the world, and for that he is owed a debt.

Benny Meng wasn’t exactly a saint towards his fellow historians while he was getting established, but has paid his dues and is worthy of respect.

the exceptional ability to shame your lineage, get your posts deleted, and be the cause for the removal of portions of threads.

“You have offended my family, and offended the Shaolin Temple …”

Every time I think I’m making real progress on here, John shows me I’m still just an amateur. :frowning:

:wink:

How many Wing Chunners to change a light bulb?

1 to get on the ladder and change the bulb and 999 to argue about who invented the ladder and who’s technique of screwing in the bulb goes back to the Shaolin Temple.

Like Robert Plant said in “The Song Remains The Same”, “Does anyone remember laughter?”

122

Originally posted by duodenum
Weiland,

Hi.
[B]

You already stated you are not a qualified historian. The only qualifications you’ve demonstrated thus far is the exceptional ability to shame your lineage, get your posts deleted, and be the cause for the removal of portions of threads.
[/B]

At least I can spell, unlike you.
[B]

I suggest you learn how to control your energy (WC 101).
[/B]

You should take a cue from Savi. Even your insults are wide of the mark, like your history.
[B]

It’s odd that everyone here has learned something from your mistakes except you. [/B]

I don’t recall any mistakes. Care to be specific? Oh, that’s right, you’re obviously deficient in that ability.

123

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for the continued discussion.

Here’s another source of confusion. The soldiers were taught what was needed – not necessarily all the HFY body mechanics, just enough to ‘get the job done’. With that in mind, and given the timeframe of all this activity, it is possible that many of the southern “family” systems were the result of people developing/training in the revolutionary armies and then continuing the training when they returned to civilian life.

I’m not sure I understand correcty. Are you suggesting that the southern family systems stem from HFY? That some of the Hung, Lau, Choy, Li, and Mok families, along with the smaller less famous families owe some of their gung fu to HFYWCK?

With all due respect, if Savi’s HFYWCK->(Yip Man, Sum Nung, Pien Sun, Yik Kam) hypotheis was a bit of a stretch, I’m not sure I know how to classify the HFY->(Southern China family arts) hypothesis.

Yes, much remains to be seen, but factual data should drive the hypothesis, not the other way around. That is to say, something should lead you to make a hypothesis, instead of making a hypothesis and then hoping that something will come later.

But again, thanks for being open about the discussion. We may start a new trend yet! :slight_smile:

Regards,
Alan

124

Hi Jeremy!

You noted:
Because the primary battlefield was not necessarily the “standard” battlefield to which you allude.
Given that these were the conditions during the latter stages of the 1600s, it is plausible that an army could be created that operated mostly in cities along the costal waterways.
There is nothing in the definition of the word army that suggests that a group of people cannot organize themselves into cells or cabals and not refer to themselves as an army.

—Good points, and what you say makes things a bit more plausible. But that is not quite the impression I got from reading the book. All the references to an army and to “Battlefield” considerations certainly implied to me that open warfare in the “conventional” sense was intended. If not, then that could have been made more clear in the text. So it sounds like you are supporting the “WCK as hand to hand self defense training of a rebel group” and not the idea that it was used to train an army to meet Qing troops in open warfare. This is more in line with what I was proposing before, but again not the impression that I got from reading the book.

You wrote:
Soldiers being taught a system developed within the Southern Shaolin Temple through a synthesis of Shaolin and Ming knowledge. It is proposed that the art was created in the context of a Buddhist Temple (Southern Shaolin Temple) with input from the Ming military. In order to “fit the part” it is necessary to blend in with the surroundings. Monks training with spears would call unnecessary attention to their activities in regards to developing a new system.

—Sure, but by the time we are approaching the Red boat era (and the days of Hung Gun Biu) this was over 100 yrs in the past. The need to “maintain appearances” was over. Again, these guys were not monks at this point.

You said:
Here’s another source of confusion. The soldiers were taught what was needed – not necessarily all the HFY body mechanics, just enough to ‘get the job done’. With that in mind, and given the timeframe of all this activity, it is possible that many of the southern “family” systems were the result of people developing/training in the revolutionary armies and then continuing the training when they returned to civilian life.

—But wouldn’t everyone have been taught the HFY “Formula” as a foundation for training? The book says that it is the “formula” that keeps HFY from being altered and changed from generation to generaion. So again, wouldn’t all these thousands of soldiers have left behind martial arts that bore a strong resemblance to what we know as HFY today? We see remnants of other systems associated with the secret socieities. Why not HFY?

You stated:
WCK was the hand to hand self-defense method of a large number of anti-Qing revolutionaries, the hand to hand combat method of an army that operated in secret fighting non-conventional warfare.

more plausible?

—Yes. Thank you . :slight_smile: But again, not quite the impression that one gets from reading the book. But maybe that was just me taking things a little to literally.

You wrote:
Actually, I’m suggesting just the opposite: The pole and double-knife are the summation of the battlefield weapons, rather than the prototypes. With an understanding of the pole and double-knife, all battlefield weapons can be understood. Going the other way, you’d have to learn all the battlefield weapons in order to understand the pole and double-knife. And again, the trainer had to understand what he was doing – the soldier just had to know what to do. That’s too different levels of information, creating two different skill sets.

----OK. I’m still not quite sure I buy the idea of pole and double knives as representative of all battlefield weapons, but then if we are talking about gorilla warfare and not the open battlefield then that wouldn’t really be necessary anyway.

Chi Sim also makes use of single hand reactional training, much like Dan Chi Sau.

–“much like” is not the same as “nearly identical.” The Dan Chi sau illustrateed in the book looks “nearly identical” to the YMWCK version in appearance.

[b]Yip Man’s later students developed Chi Gerk based upon the concepts of Chi Sao. Yip Man did not teach Chi Gerk.[b]
Chi Sim also makes use of a leg training exercise much like Chi Geuk.

—Again with the “much like.”

Then again, maybe Ip Man stole concepts/training from the Chi Sim lineage at the Daai Duk Lan. No flames, just throwing that out there as something plausable.

—Good point! I hadn’t thought of that. I’ve seen it suggested elsewhere that the YMWCK people got the idea for the suspended dummy from the DDL. The only problem with this theory is that YM seemed to be teaching these things in Foshan prior to going to Hong Kong. And Chi Sim doesn’t use the Luk Sao platform for Chi sao. And YKSWCK was certainly doing Luk Sao prior to YM going to HK.

Then again, maybe Ip Man had contact with practitioners and teachers of a wide variety of southern styles and found comment elements in training methods that plugged into his understanding and approach to martial arts. And it is possible that the common elements originated from somewhere else and were dispersed across several types and in different timeframes.

—It would certainly appear that YM was more familiar with the other families of WCK than what he let on to his primary students in HK. So you are right in suggesting that it would be hard to say what kinds of things influenced the final form of his WCK. But it was still very much in the same mold as YKSWCK and PSWCK.
So it still seems far less plausible that YM somehow learned HFY than the alternative explanation for some of the previous points.

Thanks for the reply

Keith

125

Duende wrote:
Like I said before, I am not a member of the VTM. However, I still see no reason their published research evidence should be ignored. One has to only look in a number of magazine issues from the provider of this forum to find examples of evidence the VTM has released.

—I recall an article on the discovery of what the Chinese authorities believe is the Southern Shaolin temple. It outlined the evidence for this belief. But as far as the HFY history, I recall only stories and theories. What “evidence” are you referring to?

Keith

126

EXACTLY WHAT WOULD SATISFY YOU?

Keith,
exactly what are you looking for?

KPM wrote: I recall an article on the discovery of what the Chinese authorities believe is the Southern Shaolin temple. It outlined the evidence for this belief. But as far as the HFY history, I recall only stories and theories. What “evidence” are you referring to?

It seems to me that you will not ever be satisfied with what ever source or resource that would be presented. If that is the case I can’t really see any point to continue this discussion. I have to then ask the question to you as a “criticle thinker” Is there comparible information avalible to suggest otherwise? I mean the VTM has only presented what findings they have. I mean when we look at evidence in each system. physically, (I mean beyond just simple techniques and shapes) Phylosophically, historically as in what is verified by other “none martial arts” Research institutions. For some it all becomes quite evident. But I guess if you decide not to except some things that are being pointed out. I guess things cannot move on from there. I can only say that I hope you find something to satisfy you hunger. If what is being presented does not fit your taste I can only say “I undersatnd” and we should just move on:)

Sifu Noaks

127

IMHO

Thirdperson,
“welcome to the party pal”…

originally posted by rene ritchie
Now, a hostile environment exists where non-HFY people feel they are being force fed cultish propaganda, and HFY people feel jealous, mentally-challenged, inexperienced internet people thrive on defamating them on chat groups. It’s no win, all lose, and, sadly, seemingly not about to change very soon.
“feel they are being force fed” not knowing the difference between having someone pinch your nose and shoving a untinsil down your throat as apposed to being offered a generous meal is problematic in and of itself from where I sit a a HFY member. Ill feelings and misguided perceptions of the VTM are causeing people to attack the messenger and disreguard the message at all cost. The HFY message is simple most of what we as practitioners learn about Hung Fa Yi comes directly from the system itself and yet so many people on this and other forums not knowing and unwilling to discover on their own the system doubt its history thus we can’t even get to the heart of the matter which is the application to this beautiful science.
originally posted by rene ritchie
HFY people feel jealous, mentally-challenged, inexperienced internet people thrive on defamating them on chat groups.
HFY people may not know these individuals asking questions personally so what we have to go by is their internet record of what they themselves have actually posted on other forums and if you yourself read some of the post reguarding HFY made by some of the very people on this forum you too might understand why we find some of their motives questionable. Rene, himself points out most of the people interested in the history of HFY couldn’t answer 4 out of 5 questions about there own lineage with any amount of certainty but never the less they continue to wonder aloud about others. Seriously though this is just a little friendly sibling rivalry nothing more nothing less it’s all wck and it’s all good. I believe the only thing needed here is time, time for the dust to settle time for the chips to fall and time enough for reason to reign in “feelings”.
originally posted by john weiland
don’t recall any mistakes. Care to be specific? Oh, that’s right, you’re obviously deficient in that ability.

Your lack of recall would then make you the one that is deficient. To be more specific your distateful post that was removed serves as an example of how not to act in a public forum whether you are 8 or 80.

128

duende and canglong: thanks for the welcome.

HFY members - I’ve seen some “it is possible that” remarks when some of your History is being explained. Have you, in fact, presented a theory that a certain history is merely possible?
Or, have you discovered a history but are witholding the evidence to support it? If so, why?
If you feel that neither of those characterizations can be considered fair, please present what you feel is HFY’s position in this dispute.

To the others: I think Chango’s question is very fair. “Exactly what would satisfy you?”

To Chango specifically - you said in your post:“It seems to me that you will not ever be satisfied with what ever source or resource that would be presented.”
Has the proof been presented and rejected already? Was it good proof? If so, you may be right. If not, then it may not be fair to assume that someone would reject good proof. I may have missed what led to you making that remark, and I apologize if dwelling on it is an annoyance.

Again, I’m just asking the questions and trying to make it clear that I’m not on one side or the other. This situation seems like a very fertile ground for dispute to flourish. If a large group of families feel slighted by HFY’s claim, then the claim will be scrutinized very meticulously, and that’s to be expected. The claim should be well-supported. If someone comes along and claims they have uncovered yet a deeper and greater history than what the VTM has uncovered, the VTM will want to see the research. If the proof is not satisfactory, it will be at least temporarily discredited until a time when it can be reviewed after further evidence has come to light.

I don’t fully understand why people feel as slighted as they do by the HFY history. If you are from a lineage that has publicly withstood the test of time, don’t you feel that the reputation of your kung fu is something that cannot be devalued? Your kung fu has worked on the street, for a long time. It’s not for sport. If their history is well-proven, either now, or in the future through further research, will you be giving up your particular Wing Chun lineage? None of the people here impress me as that sort.

Anyway, I will lay low and just observe from this point on. I hope an understanding is reached, and that everyone is happy with the eventual outcome. Maybe it will be resolved any moment, maybe after years, maybe never. Hopefully wisdom will outweigh insult, and progress will come.

129

Duende,

you both are going off on a tangent soley based on your own assumptions. That’s fine and all, but it would be nice to have some actual evidence to support the conclusions you are drawing. Not just your humble opinion.---- D

It is not anyone’s assumption.

[B]
FACT in the history of Qing Dynasty China:

Red Bandana is a creation of Lee Man-Mau and other Opera Actors. The reason of this creation is due to run out of Opera Costumes for the rapid growing supporters.

[/B]

If you think Rene or me are both wrong,
As Rene suggested, Why don’t you check into the publically available historical articles, books, and other works, which anyone and everyone (yourself included) can go and verify on your own. You can even go to the Chinese Gorvement to verify, how about that?

It is just a simple matter. Either Red Bandana is a creation of the Opera Actors or not. Keep it technical, attacking Rene or me is not going to change history.

130

Red Bandana is a creation of Lee Man-Mau and other Opera Actors. The reason of this creation is due to run out of Opera Costumes for the rapid growing supporters.

That could be one of the reasons why they wear them. But it also could symbolize something else. For example, the chinese moon cake festival. If you know the history behind it, you will understand why it is celebrated.

Chinese Gorvement to verify…Either Red Bandana is a creation of the Opera Actors or not.

That’s not really the point though. I mean the chinese gov. only can give you a basic explanation of what really happened. Like our history books. Christopher Columbus founded america right?Don’t think so.

What i mean is if you really wan tto know more about the red bandana, wouldn’t you want to hear it from the source.

I am actually not to interested about what came first the red bandana or Lee Man-Mau becuase everything is speculation. We have to work with what we know and that is the Hung Guhn plays a role in WCK history and that’s no doubt.

131

Re: EXACTLY WHAT WOULD SATISFY YOU?

Hi Chango!

You asked:
exactly what are you looking for?

—I am interested in WCK history and I am looking for theories that make some sense and have some plausiblity. Please go back and read my prior posts in this thread. Jeremy and I have “refined” the thesis in the HFY book a bit and it has come out a bit more “plausible.” If no one looks at a theory critically and asks some hard questions, how will it get refined?

You wrote:
It seems to me that you will not ever be satisfied with what ever source or resource that would be presented.

—I wouldn’t say that. Maybe I just have high standards. :slight_smile: Hendrik presented evidence for his theory of WCK coming from White Crane and Emie. He showed pictures of both and talked about some of the theories and kuen kit that resembled WCK and suggested that there is the possibility of a connection. That is evidence that I can accept and I can say “yea I see that and you may be right.” But Hendrik did not go out and come up with a whole entire story and create a history complete and intact. He saw a connection, showed how it may fit , and put his theory out for consideration. The HFY family has not done that. Rather than saying “here is the opera history of Cheung Ng that shows his involvement in the secret socieities” and “look here they say his nickname was Tan Sau Ng, so we think there may be a connection with WCK.” INstead the HFY book comes up with an entire history of Cheung Ng naming him as a HFY dignatary without showing any evidence to support that leap of logic. The book describes HFY as being used to train an army. This idea has logical flaws as well, which I was trying to work out with Jeremy with some success.

You asked:
I have to then ask the question to you as a “criticle thinker” Is there comparible information avalible to suggest otherwise?

—Huh? You want me to prove a negative? So if there is no evidence that the entire HFY history in wrong…that makes it automatically right? I’m sorry Chango, but that’s not how things work in any academic setting I am familiar with. Should I go out and create my own WCK origins theory and then say that if you cannot prove it wrong that it must be right?

You state:
I mean the VTM has only presented what findings they have.

—With all due respect to the VTM and the amount of effort they have put in (which is a lot) I don’t think your statement is not quite accurate. The factual evidence they have uncovered is not all that obvious. Perhaps it is woven into the HFY story in such a way that I did not recognize it properly. It would be helpful for the VTM to lay things out more explicitly. Like Hendrik has done, they could say "here is the factual evidence we have found from this source (named and referenced) and here is how we feel it fits with the HFY story. Show the evidence, show the proposed connection, and present the theory. Don’t write out an entire history without footnotes and references and expect us “critical thinkers” to just take your word for it. I’d love to see the things the VTM has uncovered on its research trips. I’d love to see the pictures they have from other WCK lineages or read the transcripts of interviews with WCK masters in China. I’d love to see the things from the other museums that they speak of that has some connection to WCK. I’d love to see and get a feel for all the hard work the VTM has done. Instead I have a story in a book that has no footnotes, no references, and makes no attempt to show logical correlations between research evidence and the HFY version of history. So maybe I am picky and hard to please. But I doubt I am the only one that thinks this way.

Keith

132

Jeremy’s KFC analogy is hereby nominated as quote of the week! (With last week’s, ‘albeit, they may be womanizers’, this is developing into the first signs of a streak!)

Thirdperson,

The problem with many WCK people and their conjectures is that they look at the wealth of information, and disinformation, and pick and choose that which will support their pre-defined belief.

What needs to be done is tabular rasa. Just look at the information without a vested interest or bias as to the outcome, and see how it fits together given the nature of the culture at the time.

The sad thing is, until time machines are invented, or the HK Sea-Scrolls are dug up, we may never know how WCK developed, and with explosives and the like, it doesn’t matter what system is the ‘best’. The argument is senseless on its face. (unless, unfortunately, people need it solely for its own sake).

133

Hendrik,

I wasn’t attacking you. I was merely pointing out how your’s and Rene’s last few posts had drifted off into conjecture land, which Rene didn’t take offence to and in fact fully admitted.

FWIW, it’s easy to recite quotes and offer evidence from books. It’s actually going out into the field to find and document your own evidence that’s hard.

BTW, this is not an attack either, just want to make that clear before the virtual commandos come swarming in.

134

[QUOTE]Originally posted by reneritchie
[B]Keith,

“Do you think it is possible for a martial art particular to the secret societies that has been hidden from the public (but used to train an army to fight in rebellion against the Cheng) to remain hidden from and unseen by the public even after those societies have largely disbanded and the primary reason for secrecy (fall of the Ching dynasty) has ended?”

Almost anything is possible. That being the case, all we can realistically do, as you say, is determine what is more likely as opposed to less likely.

Rene,

I like your questions!!.. believe me, I asked them a lot while we were doing research… I’ll try to address them in a second, but first, I would like to compliment you and everyone on this thread… it is appears to be a very mature effort to examine Wing Chun roots and provide new information in an atmosphere of sincere cooperation… most impressive! It has been my hope all along that documentation of the Ving Tsun Museum’s efforts would generate a great many questions of this caliber and would spur further reasearch efforts by Wing Chun enthusiasts worldwide.

As for your questions: “Do you think it possible for a martial art particular to the secret societies to remain hidden from the public…?” Answer: It didn’t remain hidden. There were plenty of leaks of bits and pieces… i.e. the names Siu Nim Tau, Siu Lim Tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Jee, Luk Dim Boon Kwan, etc are widespread in many variation of Wing Chun. The only thing that didn’t leak was the HFY name (for obvious reasons… only a few persons in each generation were ever permitted deep enough into the organization to know this… in light of the “9 Ancestors in Crime” execution policy of the Qing military, it is most understandable that identities at this level remained secret. Even after the fall of the Qing, we must remember that secret society members engaged in revolution (past or present) were still hunted as criminals. The need for secrecy was paramount!

Keep up the in-depth questioning. We all profit from well-intentioned serious examination.

Best regards,

Richard Loewenhagen

135

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:L3HeYp-JUzYJ:groups.yahoo.com/group/wengshunkuen/message/9+Chan+Yiu+Min+Weng+Chun&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

136

Originally posted by duende
[B]Hendrik,

FWIW, it’s easy to recite quotes and offer evidence from books. It’s actually going out into the field to find and document your own evidence that’s hard.

[/B]

Duende,

The Chinese Said, when one is sincere, heaven will show the path.

We went study with Chan patriach to find out what is a Chan mindseal might “looks” like, We went study with Southern Shao lin Kuen related Chan patirach, We search for Emei 12 Zhuang drawing and Kuit, We trace through 3 generation of Emei 12 Zhuang works from 1950’s. We make friends with Senior White Crane of Fujian practitioners who gave us the old Kuit of White Crane…
We went to Shang Hai Din Chun Dang . We search the martial art who involved in china’s 1850’s uprising. We search the opera history of China, We search for Lee Man Mau, We search for Hung Gan… We compare the finding with the old writing we have from different families. We travel from SEA to various part of China, We even visit the path where the Rebel general match into BeiJing which cause the last Ming emperor to hang himself.

And then, Rene played blind folded Judge on the meterials and cross examinine if there is any most likely connection, finally, let the data telling the stories. it can be blowing in any direction.

You are right. it’s easy to recite quotes and offer evidence from books and sutras after more then 3 decades of travelling to different place of world and visited uncountable books store and Buddhism Bookstores cover from Penang Malaysia to TaiPei to Beijing for more then past three decades collecting more then few hundreds of books.

You mention field,
Let’s talk about field in 1850’s.

Yik Kam’s has various different Slogan from the 1850’s. Those slogans were used for one to identify oneself at that time.

According to the Yik Kam writing, people in the same group will be able to continous or matching the slogan, be it in words or movements. Friends from other party will have some similarity term.

One can find out from the below’s attachment that from CLF of Canton to Shang Hai, in 1850’s, there was a similarity term among them.

There is another code /slogan within many of Codes of Yik Kam which Said:

Kim Je, Bong Jarng Chang Ying Hung.

or

Sword finger, Bong elbow, Presented to Ying Hung (heros).

With movements, one can present this by

1, stand in the left front 30, right back 70 type of “cat stance” or front arrow back bow stance.

2, do a left side bong elbow with hand rest on the waist

3, do a right biu jee to the right front, but change the biu jee into sword finger.

One can see this type of movement even in today’s Chinese Opera similar with the type in the movies Fairwell cocubine.

Below is the Secret Slogan of Cho li fut which at that time also supporting Anti-Qing Uprising.

Hung Ying Ji Sing,
Ying Hung Wing Sing.

Or

Heros of the Hung PArty are superior,
Heroes always win.

Note the parallel of the Term Heros or Ying Hung in these Slogan.

Today, One also can find different version of Ying Hung / Hung Ying writing of the Small Knive Society uprising in 1850 preserved in Dien Chun Dang of ShangHai today.

I post the first slogan of Yik Kam days ago hoping people who make a strong claim to be the oldest or knowing the oldest WCK to match the slogan as Our Opera ancestors of WCK has set up, or even if one is from other friend party at least has some same term, such as CLF. And, I am no longer waiting now.

Finally,

One can claim whatever one likes, but don’t screw the WCK opera ancestors and the GMs from different families with they are watery down version empty claims.

Those Ancestors and GMs are similar to the root of WCK, destroy the root will destroy the WCK. one can see what is the result of the Chinese Culture revolution. If you love WCK, don’t go down the path of Culture revolution. IMHO.

These WCK opera ancestors and GMs knows what they are teaching. Evidentaly, if they don’t know what they are teaching. we don’t have this forum today and there is no Bruce Lee or Leong Seong or WSL or Sung Neng or Cho Hung Choi … in different parts of the world.

IMHO, We might have same ancestors, we might have different. we migh from the reb boat, we might not, That is all respectable.

Hope that we all meditate on these.

This will be my last post until long time later.

Good bye

137

Hi Richard,

Thank you very much for taking the time to engage in the conversation. I very much welcome the VTM and their publications primarily for the reason you mention–it propels the debate. In many fields, there are differences of opinion, sometimes even over the same raw data, and it is these differences that, in part, encourage everyone to work that much harder. As Western society has shown, sometimes it in not collaboration that achieves dynamic results, but healthy, friendly diversity.

On to the questions.

WRT ‘leaks’, things like SNT, SLT, CK, BJ, and to a far greater extent, things like Tan Sao, Fook Sao, etc. seem unlikely to be leaks as the ‘language’ does not fit the time (high Qing) or space (Societies). It is very much plain language, workers language, not the deep symbolism that traditionally went with MA in general (the Cheng Wu, or poetic language) and Societies in particular (who sometimes went so far as to make up new characters to hide their nomenclature).

Of course, WCK does have its own poetic language, where things like ‘twin dragons emerge from the sea’ is understable to myself (Sum Nung), Jim Roselando (Koo lo), and Hendrik (Cho) – we all know instantly what movement it refers to, and what concept it conveys, and an ‘outsider’ does not, and this was the point of the ‘language’ back in the time of the high Qing and the Societies. If something were to have ‘leaked’, it seems more likely to have been a ‘secret’, and not a common, worker-type name.

Also, as you know, while HFY as a compound might not be a extent name, Hung Fa certainly was (Hung Fa Ting, Hung Fa Wui, Hung Fa Suen, Hung Fa Hei Ban, etc.), and Yee/Yi/Righteousness was an ideal long associated with the Brotherhood of River & Lake (even in pulp novels where the ‘rebel fist’ was given the catch-all name of Guyiquan (Ancient Righteous Boxing).)

–

Hendrik,

I know I give you a hard time over your material, but I really think it is very important that we don’t just throw things together because they’re convenient, but that everything truly binds together and fits within the established history and timeline of the Red Junk and the Societies. Look at the ‘Shanghai Connection’ article. It is still speculation at this point, to be sure, but it comes from your hands-on research in Shanghai, coroborated by published historical works by noted historians. And most importantly of all–Anyone else can look at the source material and independantly verify it.

138

Originally posted by FIRE HAWK
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:L3HeYp-JUzYJ:groups.yahoo.com/group/wengshunkuen/message/9+Chan+Yiu+Min+Weng+Chun&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Interesting post Firehawk! Nice little flashback to 1996.

139

Hendrik,

Since this is the last of your long winded posts and often repetitious themes, I do admired your feisty and genuine love of the WCK ancestors. You have given me many insights into the WCK origin and its characteristics. Why? You even convince me to hold the pillow to the great mystery of WC Jing! So just a short post to say thank you for the outpouring of tremendous posts in the past and a concise reminder to show up at the coming seminar! Ha! Ha!

We all need to know what it means to be honest. Honesty is more than not lying. It is truth telling, truth speaking, truth living, and truth loving.
- James E. Faust

Regards,

PH

140

Didn’t see Firehawk’s original post, but yes, that is a great flashback! It’s cool to look back and see how far things have come over these last years.

Originally, like many, the romance of the legends was very gripping for me. Thankfully, I was able to shed my biases and look more into the real history, which though not as nicely wrapped, perhaps, is every bit as intriguing in its own right.

I even remember the email I received in response to that post, from a gentleman in HK who laughed at me somewhat and said ‘you know, those are just stories, it would be like me writing the history of England based on King Arthur…’

I suppose I could have taken offense, but instead I thanked him, and thank him still to this day, for making me go back and take another look.

As any writer knows, critics are far more valuable than supporters.