What was known about Shaolin Kung Fu prior to the 20th century?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
21

[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203715]

But second to that in every village they practice Kung fu and have done for centuries. There are many villages. They have 1500 forms in Song shan. Yet they all practice largely the same technique. The form XiaoHongQuan appears in almost every sect.

I leanred one from Luotuoyuan village and it is similar to the current one, a bit longer with more techs. I learned from the nan yaun pai in another village separated from shaolin by 360 years. Yet their form although different was the same sequence overall and contained many of the same techniques. I learned in Mogou village (seperated by 500 years). Different form but the same technques throughout.

[/QUOTE]

Have you ever compiled a video of the various Songshan versions of Xiao Hong Quan? If so I’d love to see it…:slight_smile:

22

[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203715]Not sure where you get this from. It was indeed practiced after 1904. There has never been a gap of someone practicing.

Never the less if we look at the Forms for example. The forms now are the same largely as the ones practiced by my master in the 1930’s with some simplifications. He learned from LiGenSeng who in turn learned in Shaolin post 1904. This is all very well known if you go to the area.

But second to that in every village they practice Kung fu and have done for centuries. There are many villages. They have 1500 forms in Song shan. Yet they all practice largely the same technique. The form XiaoHongQuan appears in almost every sect.

I leanred one from Luotuoyuan village and it is similar to the current one, a bit longer with more techs. I learned from the nan yaun pai in another village separated from shaolin by 360 years. Yet their form although different was the same sequence overall and contained many of the same techniques. I learned in Mogou village (seperated by 500 years). Different form but the same technques throughout.

The main techs are; XieXing, PanZhou, ChongTianPao, Huitouwanyue, Wozhen, Gunquan, Yunding, QiXing, SHizidazhangzui, SHushen, KuaHu, DaHushi, Kuaichui, DanBian… etc etc.

True these appear in every style of longfist. But in song shan they have a unique look and they follow certain principles not held by all the others. the same names are used throughout the villages even though their kung fu is seperated by hundreds of years. And they all attribute it to Shaolin usually to JinNaLuoWang.

[/QUOTE]

Please see my previous reply about the gaps; the info comes from Shahar’s book.

How much of this martial arts you are describing as having been learnt from those villages resembles modern Wu Shu? If you are talking about Wu Shu forms then everyone knows that this is not the same as original Shaolin Kung Fu (whatever that consisted of).

What is the name of the system/style and associated techniques that your master was learning in the 1930s? Unless you can really prove that LiGenSeng studied at Shaolin (north or south?) it doesn’t really help with identifying pre-20th century Shaolin Kung Fu. A lot of teachers claimed to come from Shaolin to enhance the prestige of their Kung Fu. That’s why so many famous styles claim Shaolin to be their origin, but you have to take it with a pinch of salt. Only credible 18th/19th century sources can really be taken seriously IMO.

23

[QUOTE=falkor;1203719]A lot of what you are saying sounds based on legends or is controversial. I think the villages that surrounded the temple and associated themselves with Shaolin Kung Fu is something of a modern phenomenon since the release of Jet Li’s Shaolin Temple. Kung Fu techniques were certainly being developed in villages, say, 10-30 miles away, but I think it’s unlikely that the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the temple complex go back to ancient times; they were most likely built and formed villages attached to temple as a way of accommodating modern visitors of the past 30 years.[/QUOTE]

Its based on the fact that I lived in DengFeng for almost 7 years. I speak chinese and I went to many villages asked them and leanred from them and I know their styles.

The area had flowing water. There are villages ALL over shaolin. Actually in the last 30 years is when they were removed because of the movie they wanted to make it a more peaceful place. These are ancestral villages. They are every side of the temple all within a few miles. And a load more 10 miles away, again many who have their own unique system. Mogou village for example has the Mogou Pai style practice within their village for 500 years and until a new road was finished last year was a very hard to get to place.

Jut look at google maps of the shaolin temple and note the villages nearby. Many are too small to be listed, but there are still a lot that are.

[QUOTE=falkor;1203719]According to Shahar’s research the temple was in ruins in 1904, Kung Fu was no longer being practised there, and in 1928 burnt for 40 days. Before the Qing army arrived it had already fallen under the attack of several bandits. So there was definitely a gap in the teachings and lineage. All the masters would have fled to other parts of China and Taiwan, but then that’s where the legends start to come in, including the foundation of the Southern Shaolin Temple from 5 escapees and several burnings (both north and south); let’s not delve into that area.[/QUOTE]

The topic Shahar covered badly needed Original research. He made an analysis of known sources, he didn’t find new ones. He needed to go there and find manuals and learn the history of the surrounding area and villages.

The masters did NOT flee to Taiwan!! Why would they go that far?? They literally just went to the next village. In most cases they returned to their home villages since most of the monks were local anyway. These are mainly within 10 miles. Shaolin has several sister tempes where monks from shaolin were accepted in times of need.

The monks went and spread their knowledge in DaJinDian, in Wen cun, Luotuoyuan, BaiYunGOu, GuanDi miao, MoGOu, Ruan, yanShi, ChanJiaDian, DongJinDian etc. etc. All close by. Some of these villages actually have or had dedicated Kung fu practicing halls with indented floors just like in the temple.

I don’t know where this idea of monks fleeing to taiwan comes from, it is crazy. Do you know how far that is? Look on a map. They were mainly local and went home.

[QUOTE=falkor;1203719]What are your sources for Monkey and Mantis? Shahar’s evidence for Drunken style is sound.
The monks broke 2 rules: they drunk and they fought (for the Emperor). This is why they lasted for so long, whilst other Buddhist monasteries were shut down. Sometimes being a rebel will get you further in life than trying to be too nice and honest, etc.[/QUOTE]

There is an allowance by the Emperor to eat meat and drink wine. However they didn’t necesserily use this. The Emperor though important was not buddha. They didn’t break buddhist rules because he told them to. All the best lineages I encountered contained no drunken Kung fu. it would be popular if it was there. It is possible it was practiced but not a major style.

The history of Mantis is fairly well known to the Mantis forum, ask them. There are some forms in shaolin but not a complete mantis style. Some i know exist but are the speciality of masters who came from Shandong originally… No small wonder that their style would look like mantis.

Monkey exists though is rare. In the case of the video above this is Shaolin YuanHou Quan but I know from the very master performing it that it comes from XIngYiPai distantly.

24

[QUOTE=falkor;1203722]Please see my previous reply about the gaps; the info comes from Shahar’s book.

How much of this martial arts you are describing as having been learnt from those villages resembles modern Wu Shu? If you are talking about Wu Shu forms then everyone knows that this is not the same as original Shaolin Kung Fu (whatever that consisted of).

What is the name of the system/style and associated techniques that your master was learning in the 1930s? Unless you can really prove that LiGenSeng studied at Shaolin (north or south?) it doesn’t really help with identifying pre-20th century Shaolin Kung Fu. A lot of teachers claimed to come from Shaolin to enhance the prestige of their Kung Fu. That’s why so many famous styles claim Shaolin to be their origin, but you have to take it with a pinch of salt. Only credible 18th/19th century sources can really be taken seriously IMO.[/QUOTE]

Shahar didn’t understand the interplay between the villages and Shaolin. There is no gap in the transmission of knowledge.

Modern Wushu is built from the famous styles of Hong,Hua,Pao,Cha Quan. Every style in northern China resembles these fairly closely. They didn’t make it up from scratch.

Here are Shaolin forms from Shaolin and Uniquely Shaolin;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrLSCa16no DaTongBeiYiLu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQbZsgJ-pb4 DaHongQuanYiLu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xub2tLJYzRY XiaoHongQuanYiLu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O85HqfdCU74 TiShouPaoChui

Practiced today as they were before.

LiGenSeng was a very famous MA in Dengfeng. Speak to any old man in DengFeng and he will know his name and tell you stories. Speak to any old man in any of the villages nearby shaolin and he will know him. This is much better evidence than any written document. It cannot be faked.

25

[QUOTE=bawang;1203707]because there is no such thing as shaolin kung fu. its all imported from outside.[/QUOTE]

If you mean in terms of the techniques, then you are correct, the techs are not unique and exist in many styles. But then which style is the original? I am sure even before ShaanXi Hong Quan there were others. None can really claim to be the original.

In terms of is there Shaolin Gong Fu? Yes there is. ChanWu is Shaolin. It is in many other places but I think Shaolin gets the credit for it.

26

[QUOTE=Kellen Bassette;1203721]Have you ever compiled a video of the various Songshan versions of Xiao Hong Quan? If so I’d love to see it…:)[/QUOTE]

It is top of my to do list.

I am going to release a video of all 4 roads of Shaolin Temples XHQ and then videos of 3 other village XHQ I think are of interest.

I have to do the performance myself and get someone to film it and find a nice location first though. Videos don’t exist of most of this stuff.

27

RenDaHai, your description of the villages surrounding the Shaolin Temple together with an accurate history of their role in connection to the temple is an interesting topic in itself, so we should save that discussion for another day? I’m still trying to find out some basic information about original Shaolin Kung Fu whose history has been distorted by modern Wu Shu as well as myths and legends.

The significance of Taiwan is that it was outside Chinese rule and mostly unaffected by the ban on Martial Arts, etc. At specific periods in history there may have been nowhere safe in China to practise openly and record it in manuals. Possession of a manual meant death.

Shahar refers to villages and admits he would save that for a modern historian. It’s not that he didn’t understand; it was simply outside the scope of his book.

You believe the history of the temple in terms of knowledge remained unbroken for hundreds of years, but many people will not agree with you (goes against Shahar’s sources) due to the political events that the temple and monks got caught up in. So we’ll have to agree to differ there, though I appreciate you sharing your opinons.

LiGenSeng was a very famous MA in Dengfeng. Speak to any old man in DengFeng and he will know his name and tell you stories. Speak to any old man in any of the villages nearby shaolin and he will know him. This is much better evidence than any written document. It cannot be faked.

Oral traditions cannot always be trusted, but I can see you believe in them, which is your prerogative. For sceptics like me, we need written documents.

Does anyone else have anything to add in terms of pre-20th century Shaolin Kung Fu based on credible written sources? You can see that it’s not an easy question to answer, hence Shahar did not have anything to add at the current time. However, for those knowledgeable about Shaolin Kung Fu, they may well know about some Qing training manuals or have other sources at hand that Shahar did not consider for his book in terms of the scope. I’ve not posted this topic because I thought it was a difficult question; I’m a complete novice and don’t have the expertise to research the subject at even foundation level. I’m still hoping somebody out there does have an answer to my question who has managed to research the basic facts about Shaolin Kung Fu? I’m not asking anyone to prove the existence of the Southern Shaolin Temple or anything like that.

For modern history of Shaolin I can see there is room for lots of arguments with the possibility of people getting upset, as a lot of the discussion challenges oral traditions and family beliefs. If we can keep this discussion limited to facts about the formation of modern Wu Shu then that would be great. There’s so much to the history of Shaolin, which is why I’m trying to keep these questions as closed-ended as possible.

28

@RDH

I don’t seem to remember. Are your four roads of Shaolin XHQ from different sources? Of course not counting the 1st which I know you’ve probably covered with a number of folks.

29

Modern Wushu is built from the famous styles of Hong,Hua,Pao,Cha Quan. Every style in northern China resembles these fairly closely. They didn’t make it up from scratch.

Here are Shaolin forms from Shaolin and Uniquely Shaolin;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrLSCa16no DaTongBeiYiLu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQbZsgJ-pb4 DaHongQuanYiLu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xub2tLJYzRY XiaoHongQuanYiLu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O85HqfdCU74 TiShouPaoChui

Practiced today as they were before.

You believe modern Wu Shu is just like the original Shaolin Kung Fu? I thought it was commonly agreed upon that the government adapted it for show after a long period when Kung Fu practise was banned in China. Again, facts in the form of well-researched books or articles should be able to settle this part of the debate. It comes down to my question about who was consulted when Wu Shu entered the competition realm.

Do others believe that Wu Shu today is what Shaolin monks practised in the past?

30

I don’t think that’s what RDH said… :confused:

31

[QUOTE=falkor;1203706]I’ve read the book thoroughly, and it doesn’t list any techniques/styles for Shaolin Kung Fu following the earliest known manuals and drunken style. There is a gap of several hundred years where only neighbouring Kung Fu styles are explicitly talked about.

David obviously hasn’t read the book because the Shaolin Temple burnt only once![/QUOTE]

I should have guessed. :rolleyes:

Do you want the page number? OK.
Chapter 5- Hand Combat probably has what you want. It also contains the reference from the earlier part of the book I mention regarding the use of staff.

page 61 has an illustration from 1621 shaolin staff method manual.

Bandits destroyed the temple by sacking it in approx CE 1350.
It was again destroyed in 1641 prior to the fall of the Ming by LiZicheng
It was again destroyed in 1927-28.

Pretty sure you’re just trolling or looking for free info that you are obviously too lazy to pick up a book and read for yourself. probably in some effort to make crap attacks against current styles that link to shaolin for whatever motivation you have.

But hey that’s cool, why don’t you attack me personally and tell more lies about what I do or don’t do? In teh meantime, read the book, it is in there and there are many other reliable sources as well.

just because you live in a void of information about other cultures doesn’t mean you can’t make the effort to learn.

not to mention that you almost immediately discount everything everyone here is telling you. Confirmation bias much?

32

I think I have learned quite a bit from reading this thread so far:

  1. Shabadabadoo is the expert on Shaolin Kung Fu because he put words on paper and words on paper mean more than something that is said with the voice.

  2. It doesn’t matter a fig what people who have lived in the area for generations think or believe because they only have traditions that go back hundreds of years, but they are oral traditions and these are less reliable than what Shabadabadoo wrote because he is the expert!

  3. Family traditions that grew out of Shaolin because they were learned through those who trained at the temple are of less veracity than anything Shabadabadoo wrote, because the written word is KING and real life experience is nothing compared to words on paper.

  4. People who read books written by other people who got their information from other people who wrote books know more about the subject under discussion that people who have actually been there, done that with other people who have been there and done that who learned from others who have been there and done that, because…well doing it is not as reliable as writing a book about doing it!

  5. Someone who asks a question with a cup already full has no room for anymore tea!

  6. Stupid people ask questions they think they already have the answers too in order to show others how smart they are, but only end up looking more stupid than they were to begin with!

  7. My sifu, called The Ancient One, taught us, “He who asks a question and doesn’t like the answer he gets, didn’t want an answer to his question in the first place!”

He was very wise!:cool:

33

[QUOTE=LFJ;1203735]@RDH

I don’t seem to remember. Are your four roads of Shaolin XHQ from different sources? Of course not counting the 1st which I know you’ve probably covered with a number of folks.[/QUOTE]

Hey LFJ

Same source. I learned 1,2,3,4 all from CuiXiQi and his son. Last time we met I hadn’t learned 3 and 4 but I have now. I think i showed you part 2.

I also have the Nanyuan XHQ ( i showed you that too), LuotuoYuan XHQ and Mogou XHQ which are all part 1. The nanyuan have all 4 roads in tact and part 1 and 2 are very similar to My 1and 2 from CuiJia. But I only learned 1 and saw the others. I intend to learn all.

Thats 7 XHQs, but the 4 from CuiJia are all supposed to be practiced together as a complete set. Also We have DaHong 1+2 and when you see their DaHong part 2 it is obvious it was created to be part of the same style as XHQ 1,2,3,4. The 6 together form a complete sub style of Hong Quan.

34

[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203742]Hey LFJ

Same source. I learned 1,2,3,4 all from CuiXiQi and his son. Last time we met I hadn’t learned 3 and 4 but I have now. I think i showed you part 2.

I also have the Nanyuan XHQ ( i showed you that too), LuotuoYuan XHQ and Mogou XHQ which are all part 1. The nanyuan have all 4 roads in tact and part 1 and 2 are very similar to My 1and 2 from CuiJia. But I only learned 1 and saw the others. I intend to learn all.

Thats 7 XHQs, but the 4 from CuiJia are all supposed to be practiced together as a complete set. Also We have DaHong 1+2 and when you see their DaHong part 2 it is obvious it was created to be part of the same style as XHQ 1,2,3,4. The 6 together form a complete sub style of Hong Quan.[/QUOTE]

It is a shame you didn’t happen to learn it all from a book. Then perhaps you would have learned something of value.

Maybe you can ask your sifu to write it all down (in English of course) so it can be REAL style!:wink:

35

Do you want the page number? OK.
Chapter 5- Hand Combat probably has what you want. It also contains the reference from the earlier part of the book I mention regarding the use of staff.

That chapter mentions the earliest sources of Shaolin Kung and Drunken style as well as other styles taught in close proximity to the temple, but it doesn’t mention how Shaolin Kung Fu itself (Shaolin Quan) developed between the Ming-Qing period (when those 2 books were thought to first be written) and 1904, excluding examples of known techniques that would have formed part of the Shaolin repertoire.

page 61 has an illustration from 1621 shaolin staff method manual.

The first part of the book is about Shaolin staff, right, but this topic is about Shaolin Kung Fu (or empty hand combat)

Bandits destroyed the temple by sacking it in approx CE 1350.
It was again destroyed in 1641 prior to the fall of the Ming by LiZicheng
It was again destroyed in 1927-28.

Sorry, I forgot to emphasise the word “burnt”, as that is the source of much legend and confusion. Sacked/destroyed would be a better word for the first 2 events, and burnt is more accurate for the last event, but now I see where the added confusion lies.

Pretty sure you’re just trolling or looking for free info that you are obviously too lazy to pick up a book and read for yourself. probably in some effort to make crap attacks against current styles that link to shaolin for whatever motivation you have.

I’m done with Shahar’s book, but if you can point me in the right direction to any other relevant scholarly works to fill the gap relating to Shaolin Kung Fu specifically–as well as history of modern Wu Shu–then that’s why I am here.

But hey that’s cool, why don’t you attack me personally and tell more lies about what I do or don’t do? In teh meantime, read the book, it is in there and there are many other reliable sources as well.

Sorry you feel that way. I’m not in the business of personal attacks.

not to mention that you almost immediately discount everything everyone here is telling you. Confirmation bias much?

I’m not discounting anything, but people need to back up what they are saying with quotes from primary or secondary sources, otherwise–in the mythical world of Shaolin–how can anyone take them seriously? Such bad scholarship has been published in Kung Fu magazines over the years; why should anyone entertain fantasy? I say let’s stick to the facts!

36

[QUOTE=falkor;1203734]
Shahar refers to villages and admits he would save that for a modern historian. It’s not that he didn’t understand; it was simply outside the scope of his book.

You believe the history of the temple in terms of knowledge remained unbroken for hundreds of years, but many people will not agree with you (goes against Shahar’s sources) due to the political events that the temple and monks got caught up in. So we’ll have to agree to differ there, though I appreciate you sharing your opinons.[/QUOTE]

It goes against his sources because he didn’t cover the villages. The knowledge is unbroken because you can’t consider the temple like this isolated place with secret knowledge. The Kung Fu was in constant flux being exchanged with the villages literally on its doorstep (village people literally trained on the actual doorstep of Shaolin). So if someone leaves shaolin it doesn’t break the line at all. They might have gone as close as 100m down the road and passed it on there and a student would then return to shaolin temple. It is literally that close. That is why it is ridiculous to assume anything is lost because of that reason. The Great leap forward starvation and the culteral revolution did the most to damage Kung Fu. But people like my master learned before this time and are still teaching today. There are many like this so the CR didn’t finish them all. The knowledge could only be broken if they all died at exactly the same time, and that didn’t ever happen.

[QUOTE=falkor;1203734]
Oral traditions cannot always be trusted, but I can see you believe in them, which is your prerogative. For sceptics like me, we need written documents. [/QUOTE]

Neither can written documents. Remember only scholars could read and write and what they wrote was not necesserily the truth but what they needed to write to fullfil their motives. Oral history is possibly less biased. It exagerates stories but tends to contain the memory of events. Anyway when I am talking about LiGenSeng it is literally within LIVING memory. So if you ask a few old people who actually knew him (he only died in 1960) they will not all tell the same lie.

[QUOTE=falkor;1203734] Does anyone else have anything to add in terms of pre-20th century Shaolin Kung Fu based on credible written sources? You can see that it’s not an easy question to answer, hence Shahar did not have anything to add at the current time. However, for those knowledgeable about Shaolin Kung Fu, they may well know about some Qing training manuals or have other sources at hand that Shahar did not consider for his book in terms of the scope.[/QUOTE]

Shahar to give him credit did an extensive search of written sources. There is nothing else apart from the hand written manuals. But these need to be Carbon dated to confirm and its a lot of work.

The best you can do is to look at examples of Kung Fu from the hundreds of villages and see the differences and similarities and come to the conclusion that to have 1500 forms, all well made and all containing many of the same basic techniques and methods yet also different it must have taken centuries and that must be shaolin Kung Fu just as they say it is.

Remember this was a niche topic at the time. No local style books would have been printed, only hand written, even into the 20th century. These survive only in the hands of families. But you can actually SEE the kung fu. You can see its evolution buy looking through the various forms.

37

[QUOTE=falkor;1203736]You believe modern Wu Shu is just like the original Shaolin Kung Fu? I thought it was commonly agreed upon that the government adapted it for show after a long period when Kung Fu practise was banned in China. Again, facts in the form of well-researched books or articles should be able to settle this part of the debate. It comes down to my question about who was consulted when Wu Shu entered the competition realm.

Do others believe that Wu Shu today is what Shaolin monks practised in the past?[/QUOTE]

The forms I posted ARE the forms the monks practiced in the past. HOw do I know? Becuase the ones I posted are the same as my master learned in the 30’s (the first video IS my ShiYe). They Therefore cannot be affected by modern wushu.

I know they are the same because I have seen many versions of these SAME forms in the villages around. Different enough that they must have been learned at a different time but similar enough that one can see they are the same form.

38

Shahar to give him credit did an extensive search of written sources. There is nothing else apart from the hand written manuals. But these need to be Carbon dated to confirm and its a lot of work.

Shahar only researched the history of the monastery and people up until the 19th century with mention of Shaolin staff and local hand techniques. It was not in his interest to explain the definition of Shaolin Kung Fu or trace its development, but if he did then I’m sure I would already have my answer.

The best you can do is to look at examples of Kung Fu from the hundreds of villages and see the differences and similarities and come to the conclusion that to have 1500 forms, all well made and all containing many of the same basic techniques and methods yet also different it must have taken centuries and that must be shaolin Kung Fu just as they say it is.

That tells me more about general martial arts development in the villages of Henan provice or north China than it does about Shaolin/Kung fu. Something similar happened around Fujian tied up with the history of Southern boxing. I don’t believe we are left with no choice but to reverse engineer current forms to figure out the parent style. There must be sources out there that describe Shaolin Kung Fu in the 18th-19th century.

Remember this was a niche topic at the time. No local style books would have been printed, only hand written, even into the 20th century. These survive only in the hands of families. But you can actually SEE the kung fu. You can see its evolution buy looking through the various forms.

There clearly were records of temple visits, which Shahar quotes, but he doesn’t say whether they included descriptions of Shaolin Kung Fu. Lots of manuals have already been preserved and published; any of those could be shown to pre-date the 20th century at least and provide lists of techniques practised at Shaolin. I believe it’s a company called Lion; does anyone have a catalogue/list of their publications? Anyway, I’m not skilled to carry out such research myself of the primary sources, but somebody must have already done some work on it and published something that at least answers my question. Does anyone have links to Tang Ho’s works translated into English? He must have found out what Shaolin Kung Fu consisted of prior to 1904; what were they practising for hundreds of years? Nevermind what they are practising now.

It’s starting to feel like I’m flogging a dead horse here, as I don’t seem to be getting any relevant answers to my question. I didn’t think we would be getting into arguments, etc. OK, what about just a biblography of other books about Shaolin that might be worth reading?

39

[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203748]The forms I posted ARE the forms the monks practiced in the past. HOw do I know? Becuase the ones I posted are the same as my master learned in the 30’s (the first video IS my ShiYe). They Therefore cannot be affected by modern wushu.

I know they are the same because I have seen many versions of these SAME forms in the villages around. Different enough that they must have been learned at a different time but similar enough that one can see they are the same form.[/QUOTE]
The first video you showed was very aesthetically pleasing. OK, I’ll take a look at those latest videos you posted when I get home from work. Do you have any weblinks to the specific techniques in question? Or hopefully the Youtube links and discussions will provide context.

40

Having lived in Japan and China for nearly ten years and now returned to the USA, I find there is never a lack of people who’d like to tell me what China or Japan is really like.

When I visited my alma mater, I was invited by a group of Japanese language students to come talk to them about my experiences. Invariably, the question of “what’s your favorite sushi?” came up. I answered “Ebi abocado” (shrimp and avocado). One student, who had no doubt never visited Japan, was stupid enough to say “Actually, that doesn’t exist in Japan. Japanese people would never eat such a thing.”:confused:

Meir Shahar’s book is a good start but it is the only decent book in English done with proper research. Dahai lives there, speaks Chinese, and most of his posts confirms my own experiences.