Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 9

message: Should'nt even take two days, just a jump in and jump out trip of sorts. Will answer as soon as I come back. Freedom skies 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if you are not the person who wrote that crazy letter up there then i do apologize... regardless, i warned the user on being more civil... oh, and i have no interest in finding out where you live... Kennethtennyson 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notifying a two day leave

message: we should add paul elliot and j.a.g. roberts and meir shahar to the list of specialists in martial arts history, ie. historians who do not believe in this theory or even in the existence of any portion of the bodhidharma legend.  j.a.g. roberts discounts the fact that bodhidharma even contributed to zen.  Kennethtennyson 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more scholars to add

message: I've been asked to have a look at this discussion. While I agree that generally the martial arts are a tendentious subject (go figure), we don't have to be so when reporting them. It is possible to report legendary stories as stories (whether polemic, didactic, nationalist, etc.) without asserting they are true. Our article on Zhang Sanfeng can serve as one example. 
I would like all the editors to acquaint themselves with WP:AGF, WP:Civility and especially WP:NPA. This means using words like "crazy", unfounded accusations of threats and direct threats towards other editors are out. I will from now warn editors who do so, and then apply blocks where necessary if the warnings don't work. We have to decide if we are scholars or gang members. --Fire Star 火星 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello everyone 

message: Surprising, JFD.
Now you're bringing arguments that you know are wrong to the table to get me caught in doing what was never disputed in the first place, surprising and now I've begun to realize how the barnstar changes an academic. You're just attempting to cover up for kenny, to try and legitimize his so-called-arguments.
You said "I prefer to let Zarrilli, Pillai, and Barbosa speak for themselves.
The earliest recorded evidence of Kalaripayyattu date from Portuguese descriptions during the latter 16th-17th centuries and becoming less prominent after the British outlawed it during the 18th and 19th centuries CE. It has recently been reinvigorated in the last few decades due to the general worldwide interest in martial arts." to Kenny on 06:55, 15 June 2006.""
You freaking knew that (and I quote) "the British outlawed it during the 18th and 19th centuries CE", and yet you questioned the legitimacy of "The Decline of martial practices" portion.
Wow, guess when you tick one of the barnyard couple, the other goes after you all the way, huh ???
Anyways, and the importance of Royal patronage to Pehlwani is described in the Alter's citation, Royal patronage which went  as the british controlled India and replaced the local kings by the crown (what exactly are you asking me to cite here ?? that the british never killed Kshatriya kings ?? or did'nt replace the local rulers with the crown ?? Yes they did and with the replacing of local rulers went the patronage that they gave to many arts, martial or otherwise.). Microscopic riyasats like Datia and Gwalior collaborated with the british as they were too weak to actually fight them, their local traditions survived.
Because, judging from the Alter, between the royal patrons he lists and the story of Gama, it sounds like royal patronage was alive and well. 
The sentiment in that time was every victory Gama had was a victory against the british, see the citation.
As for Datia, the british did'nt wipe out but collaborated with it, these states were not conquered but treaties signed and revenues collected, cultures remaining almost intact. Similar examples are Gwalior etc., The india that was conqured by the British, maratha, sikh empires, there rulers were replaced by the crown, which could not care less for providing any patronage to local arts.
*Joeseph alter's citation, on how important the patronages are was provided by me.
*Do I seriously have to provide a citation for "the british replacing local rule with the crown" and "the british conquest" ?? Do you not believe that the British took over India ??? for 200 years. If you want to have a look for yourself so badly just go to these sites.  I have come to expect hollow arguments and tactics of delay but arguing that the british never conquered India by force is just too obvious of a delay tactic.
Add 2+2, importance of patronage and the removal of it. Now, if you want books, run the same keywords thorugh Google book search or JSTOR.
----
Had you quoted that message in full it would have read:
Here's the diff.
The normal text is me. That second sentence in italics is code from the Kalarippayattu article pasted on to Kennethtennyson's Talk Page so that I could ask him to provide sources for the statement that there was a ban under the Raj.
And notice, I asked Kennethtennyson for sources just like I ask you for sources.This:That is exactly what I want you to cite."Adding 2+2" is original research.And, as I pointed out before, according to Alter, the institution of royal patronage was alive and well during the British Raj.If you want to add this material to the article, that's your job.Shiva's Trident and Bakaman have been quiet lately. Did something happen to them?JFD 20:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi Firestar,  and replies

message: Here, did'nt take any time at all. I can also provide more books on request. 
And here you'll find kingdoms which had their kings , who fought the british, replaced by the british crown.
Indian arts being preserved in a microscopic riyasat which signed an agreement with the british, thereby retaining living Royal native kings to provide patronage is one thing, the elimination by force of entire empires like Maratha empire, Sikh confederacy and the killing and replacement of their living Royal kings with the distant British crown, killing scores of Maratha and Rajput Kshatriya warriors in the process, leaving no living royal at all to provide patronage, amongst other things, is another.
And you'll of course, see that royal patronage, when provided comes in extremely useful to the practitioners of martial arts, as described by Alters citing microscopic riyasats, which unlike entire empires were lucky enough to retain their living Royal local kings to provide royal patronage, amongst other things.
Anyways, you should also like this one in particular.
Brutal and effective, kalarippayat thrived for centuries until the British colonial government banned it in 1804.  
On request, I can get more of those too.
Freedom skies 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we never disagreed with you freedom skies on the decline of some indian martial arts to the british... actually in my past edits, i have stated that various indian martial arts have declined due to the british... the disagreement was in the statement that "the british were instrumental in the decline of all indian martial arts" without a mention of other causes of the decline. It is a very POV statement.  in the end, it's a matter of degrees. you as an engineer should know the difference between degrees of statement... the same can be said of mullayuddha... you can state if you wish that it is a martial art of the ancients but you have to give us the right to state that there is evidence out their suggesting that it could be just a generic term for wrestling.Kennethtennyson 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Reply

message: Brutal and effective, kalarippayat thrived for centuries until the British colonial government banned it in 1804.  
I'm going to see if I can find someone who actually has this book.The person whom I had hoped might have the book, doesn't.JFD 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we never disagreed with you freedom skies on the decline of some indian martial arts to the british... actually in my past edits, i have stated that various indian martial arts have declined due to the british... the disagreement was in the statement that "the british were instrumental in the decline of all indian martial arts" without a mention of other causes of the decline. It is a very POV statement.  in the end, it's a matter of degrees. you as an engineer should know the difference between degrees of statement... the same can be said of mullayuddha... you can state if you wish that it is a martial art of the ancients but you have to give us the right to state that there is evidence out their suggesting that it could be just a generic term for wrestling.Kennethtennyson 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample code

message: What I care about is that editors cite reliable sources for the material they add—for controversial issues, that means scholarly sources—and that they don't misrepresent those sources *cough*AlexDossFelineMD*cough*Each and every Wikipedia editor has the right to delete material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced—that is, the source cited does not verify the text in question—without being subjected to accusations of vandalism or racism.The burden of proof falls on the editor who wishes to add material, not on the editor who wishes to remove material that is unsourced.
Western colonialism was such a catastrophic and transformative event for India that of course it affected Indian martial practices. But in order to attribute it to specific mechanisms, be it economic obsolescence or the death of patrons in wars with the British, we still need to cite reliable sources.JFD 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JFD's 2 cents