MovieChat Forums > Huo Yuan Jia (2006) Discussion > Where have the warriors gone today?

Where have the warriors gone today?


Ok, the title may kinda sound stupid, I know someone will write "well a better questions is where have all the cowboys gone?"

But my question is how before their were great warriors who fought for honor, pride, respect, dignity, and purpose, where are our great warriors of this time?

Even some of the soldiers fighting such as friends I have fighting in Iraq and even Pat Tillman, the felled outspoken football soldier who died under mysterious conditions, seem to want to fight to make a difference but in the end feel like an infinetesimal spoke in the wheel (many are even against the actions partake in, especially Iraq). Passionate politicians who don't appease big business, lobbyists, and the elite are ousted. With the exception of 9/11, policemen and firemen are seen as donut-eating, air-condition-wasting, paid government employees who most of the time don't have much to do.

Most of the time, it seems like if we want to make a difference, its by educating ourselves, bettering our and our close family and friends lives, and giving 20$ a month to some charity because if you want to do anything there is always some bureaucratic b*******. Where have the Huo yuan Jia's gone (besides in the movie making industry) and what can the little guy do in this bustling macrocosm of globalization.

Serious comments please.





every passing minute is another chance to turn it around - vanilla sky

reply

They have been destoryed by the society.



Somewhere between you and me, I got lost

reply

Good question. Modern society encourages mediocrity, the antithesis of the human spirit. I like to think that these people are the ones quietly toiling to improve this world and themselves, and to do so is something of a solitary discipline. A better question would be, "What can I do to be this type of person?"

Currently watching this movie now. I am impressed.

The most important thing you need to know...
Is that you don't know sh!t.

reply

I think Glazyer put it well. They have been destoryed by the society.
Back then warriors actually used to have honor, nowadays you have a dumbass with a gun

reply

I'm not sure what the question is.

If you are asking why aren't there anymore knights or samurai, or in other words, skilled warriors who practice it as a trade. It's because of guns.

Weapons like the sword and the bow required skilled warriors who trained all their lives, to use them. They are not easy weapons to wield. However the gun changed armies from skilled warriors to conscripted peasants. This is because the gun is a weapon easy to use, you can learn how to use it in a matter of hours or even minutes. A peasant with a gun can defeat a skilled samurai with a sword. The peasant with the gun was more effective AND he was cheaper.

Today, soldiers in America aren't conscripted but they mostly come from poor families still.

Where have the warriors gone? They are obsolete.

reply

[deleted]

^Marines or cops are never warriors, because they aren't a "class". They have no nobility associated with them, and mostly come from poor families.

reply

[deleted]

Tzahal commandos are among the most highly skilled fighters in the world. When I was a lad in jewish summer camp one of the councelors was an ex Tzahal commando, and he was trained in Aikido while in service, as well as of course, Krav Maga which Tzahal soldiers know, and commandos master.

This is going to sound like total B.S., but I kid you not, it's true: one time we were going to play a practical joke on the guy (because that's one of the things you do while in summer camp)while he was asleep. We ended waking him up really quickly and he instantly snapped into kill mode, he grabbed the kid who was next to his bed, and then realized what he was doing and stopped.

---------
http://www.sincity-forums.tk

reply

Surely a warrior is someone who lives by virtue and honour, not someone who wields weaponry.

The most important thing you need to know...
Is that you don't know sh!t.

reply

Nope. That's what we call a "Good person"

A warrior is someone who is expert in combat. A great warrior combines the qualities of a good person with the qualities of a warrior.

---------
http://www.sincity-forums.tk

reply

"A warrior is someone who is expert in combat."

ideals like bushido are equally applicable to any aspect of life as they are to combat. being a warrior means being as dedicated to every action as a fighter. putting the same care into every footstep that you would a killing blow. and it means facing every conflict without fear, physical or otherwise. i think if everyone shared such a philosophy, we would not have any of the problems wer have today. we have too many fighters, not enough warriors.

reply

Guns killed them all.

reply

In my opinion, there is more that defines a warrior than fighting. The spirituality of the warriors of these bygone eras, in Samurai's for example, was key and core. Their practises centered upon the way that they lived their life by, be it the Way of the Samurai, or other Martial Arts.

So I guess based on that criteria, there is no modern day warrior. Yes, there are men who fight for their country, some even for a noble cause, but very very few would treat their life as a way of life. Meerly a career, a job, at most a purpose. Like someone has mentioned before me, modern mankind is ruled by mediocrity, to a mindnumbing extent.

There are still obviously practitioners of the various martial arts in China, Japan, Korea +, who dedicate their entire lives to their Way, but what makes a warrior without a war.. As far as I know, there are no noble wars. And no wars without guns.

Excuse the nonsensical, it's late, and i'm rarely articulate at the best of times.

reply

Wow, good answers all to the question especially grumpy_old_man taking a page out of JFK's book, ask not "what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". I wonder what JFK would be asking if he knew what we were doing in Iraq. But anyways I was mostly referring to the warrior spirit, modern-day heroes without hidden agendas. I do know that we don't fight wars with bows and arrows anymore, and our swords of today are guns, and our horses are tanks, and so on.

Even those who serious practitioners or martial arts are basically seen as performers. As a fan of National Geographic, I have seen two good docs "Fight Science" and "Shaolin Monks" who showed great skill and discipline. Sadly upon further research, I see that the fight science fighters do extensive work as stunt doubles in movies, and the Shaolin Monks are a huge tourist attraction in China with their own website and everything. Times are different, and the almighty dollar rules indiscriminately.

I think there's a warrior in each of us, but our environment does influence us to mediocrity. The men who fought back in United 93 had that warrior spirit, the fireman and policeman who do their duty to serve and protect (and not beat innocent people), and the soldiers overseas who fight to protect from terrorism (and don't abuse their power). Also, all men and women who rise to success through building from the inside - out and then living with virtue and giving back such as the dalai lhama, ghandi or mother theresa who fight against the elements and do the right thing. I think life is somewhat like a war, and those who live it well with virtue, fight the demons inside to become stronger, and then fight against what is not right and make it right, those are the warriors of today, but that's just my 2 cents. Good opinions thus far.

Life is a marathon, not a sprint, and in the end you see you only race against yourself

reply

[deleted]

"Well, there are warriors in PRIDE FC, UFC and K-1. Fedor, Takanori Gomi, Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipovic, Mauricio "Shogun" Rua, Sergei Kharitonov, Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, Dan Henderson, Ricardo Arona, etc."

No offence, but those people are certainly not warriors. Do they fight for a worthy cause? No. Then they are not warriors.

All they fight for is fame and fortune. A true martial artist seeks neither of those. A true warrior fights only when they MUST, and certainly not for money.

reply

Exactly. Those UFC guys are all great fighters, but nothing more than that: fighters. A warrior is much more than just a master of weapons and bare-hands fighting techniques. In Bushido, there are seven virtues that every warrior must posess:

- Rectitude
- Courage
- Benevolence
- Respect
- Honesty
- Honor
- Loyalty

Now tell me, how many people do you know that posess more than two or three of them? They are very rare, aren't they? No wonder warriors are extinct, they wouldn't survive in this rotten society we all live in.

reply

Well, the concept of Bushido is post-Samurai, kind of like the concept of Chivalry. Knight slaughtered and raped, and Samurai betrayed and switched sides at the slightest whim, killed women and children, and kept hostages to insure that no one could united against them.

And back then, martial arts duels were done more out of greed than honor. The best swordsman got to be the head instructor to the Shogun, or if you beat up the local Kung Fu master, you got to open a school and take all his students.

As usual, it came down to money and status.



"Two tigers cannot live on the same mountain"

reply

You have to understand much of this "warrior" stuff is overly romanticized. The so called "Knights" of ye olden times were'nt the noble chivalrous sort that legend has them made out to be. Same goes with warriors of old, no matter where they might have come from. You just need to research this stuff more, and then you'll find what you thought these men/women were, they never were.

You put people up on a pedestal you're going to find that they can't help but fall. As far as the old time, spirit and ethics, and code, think of it like for instance the "old west" in the US. These things pass off into antiquity, and are past. That's the way of the world. You may trying to look ahead, instead of looking back, you may fare better that way.

reply

Read something by David Grossman and you'll see that the real definition of a warrior is someone who embraces combat as a lifestyle, who conquers others by defeating them in battle and ultimately killing them, not for money or fame or anything else, but because it's what he does. I'm a soldier but I'd never call myself a warrior because I'm a "professional killer", I get paid to do my job. If the government stopped paying me I'd probably just go home and do something that does pay. A warrior would fight regardless of pay or lack thereof, maybe partly because there really is no one else who will fight and if he doesn't do it then his people will all die. This forces him to accept that fighting is his lifestyle, not just his job. That's a true warrior.

What made the warriors go extinct? Modern society. Stuff like automobile assembly lines, beer breweries, and electronics manufacturers are all examples of highly efficient methods of producing stuff. Building cars used to be an art until robots started doing it for us. The same goes for warfare. People used to have to fight for the lives of their families and in the names of their ancestors, but now professional armies can train you to fight in a war in less than a year, give you the tools and weapons you need to survive, and on top of that they can pay you and support your family. And on top of that, you can quit just about any time you want, if you know how to work the system. Us modern soldiers are just uniformed labourers, not unlike your average factory worker. Warfare is no longer an art, it's more akin to a manufacturing process. Why are there still artists in other trades? Building cars by hand is still an art because you can do that in your garage. Brewing beer at home is still an art because you don't interfere with other people's lives by doing it. You cannot practice the art of warfare without hurting a lot of people, nor does the modern battlefield have any place for the "art of war", so war as an art form is dead because it can't be practiced.

reply

Well, lets see.

All of the major "warriors" are in some kind of gang these days, heck most people if they are capable of that kind of power intrinsically, they will abuse it.

Second, there are a whole bunch of serious bad ass dudes that work for black water (this mercenary group).

Third, have you watched K1 fights? That's where some are (I saw this big ass black dude squish two apples into apple sauce, one in each hand on howard stern).

Then, look at our NAVY Seals. Look at them


Next, we have others like every single bad ass fool that works for the taiwan thunder squad.... damn those dudes are nasty too...

But, it's like that old school prophecy that said "The world will be cursed from one end to the other by the beast which holds a grip until the end" aka money will replace religion and well, people love money. Money causes people to not be warriors. Money also buys things to stop them.

But hey, look at our old school freedom fighters like John Dillinger. He was the greatest.

And Morihei Ushiba. Craziest martial artist to ever live. Saposidly killed more people in the military then all other folk lore heros combined.

People also still practice Bak Mei Kung Fu (that's what people also know as Pak Mei or Pei Mei as in White Eyebrow from Kill Bill 2) Not like people just invented these hero's to scare you or to show off or anything.



So if you think about it, and realize Bak Fu Pai or Pak Mei Pai/Bak Mei Pai are real, anchient systems and this stuff called "Wu Shu" was just sort of made up and passed down like some forms of traditional tai chi imagine what the real stuff was and is capable of.

From what I heard, the five original styles of Kung Fu are all perfectly completely intact but owned entirely by the triad.

Plus, how do you know these people don't hang out near your home?

I am sure, that's the point Stan Lee was making with his comics about the X-Men before onslaught. How people can have power but in todays society it's not exactly welcomed too warmly.

reply

Sway431, I would say you took the words right out of my mouth, but you put it so eloquently I don't think those exact words were ever in my mouth. You get what I mean? - from when I read the OP, I had the thoughts you expressed so well there about people becoming legends after their time, when the slow processes of what they initiate come to fruition, and with the accumulation of so much myth, lore, half-rememberings, and misty-eyed nostalgia.

I'm afraid I have nothing more to add on the subject so I'll just say,

"seconded".



I'm bringing Afro back!!! Unlike most boys, I can't wear a hat!

reply

First of all, I'm a devoted martial artist and I know very much about "The Way of the Warrior" practised by warriors in the past and it's philosophical tone to be a "good, honourous and rightous human being". BUT you don't need to be a good person and doing only good to be a warrior. In fact, in the past, over 90% of the warriors (including masters) were "badasses". Only logical, that the few real fine warriors became legends up to our days. The only thing in what a warrior must excel is in KILLING. KILLING FAST WITHOUT WORRIES, EMOTIONS, FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS. A TRUE WARRIOR HAS ABSOLUTELY NO HESISTATE OR A BAD CONSCIENCE WHEN HE HAS TO KILL, EVEN IF HE MUST KILL AN INNOCENT CHILD!

No soldier, no Mixed-Marial Art or Full-Contact Fighter and no Street Fighter is a warrior! And to go a step further, no martial art with the suffix -do like Karate-Do, Judo, Aikido, Taekwondo, Hapkido, Kendo, Iaido, Kyudo, Naginatado... is making the practitioner a warrior because these are all modern, watered down versions of ancient (battlefield-) killing arts. The modern martial arts are meant to serve as a tool to make practitioners fit to serve as good persons for a good society. And all of the really deadly killing moves are taken away of them. (They still have good techniques for self-defence but they ar no more killing arts).

A true warrior of our days but fictionally is RYU from the famous STREET FIGHTER Game. He trains his body, mind and spirit from early morning to night every day and he travels around the world and challenges the best of the best warriors not for money, fame, proud or to be the best, no, it is his way to reach new levels of consciousness and finally reach enlightenment! (Of course, in reality you can not become spiritual through duel fighting). But why I say he is a true warrior when he doesn't kill anyone? Because he lives in the modern world, there's no nessecity anymore for a warrior to kill but nevertheless he is always ready for it, every second. THIS IS A TRUE WARRIOR, TO BE READY AT ANY TIME TO DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, EVEN IF YOU LOOSE YOUR LIFE DOING IT!

reply

You've got it absolutely right.

"The only thing in what a warrior must excel is in KILLING. KILLING FAST WITHOUT WORRIES, EMOTIONS, FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS. A TRUE WARRIOR HAS ABSOLUTELY NO HESISTATE OR A BAD CONSCIENCE WHEN HE HAS TO KILL, EVEN IF HE MUST KILL AN INNOCENT CHILD!"

That's just the way it is. This is a time of war everywhere, and so there are warriors everywhere. They may not possess the culture of Huo Yuanjia but in their own way they have courage, skill and devotion. The original post in this thread is an unworthy comment.

reply

"KILLING. KILLING FAST WITHOUT WORRIES, EMOTIONS, FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS. A TRUE WARRIOR HAS ABSOLUTELY NO HESISTATE OR A BAD CONSCIENCE WHEN HE HAS TO KILL, EVEN IF HE MUST KILL AN INNOCENT CHILD!" -Dragonshen

I think Dragonshen trains with the Cobra Kais! "There is no fear in this dojo!"

..No but seriously, I think Dragonshen IS Dwight Schrute from the Office.

reply

LOL!

But I was thinking more along the lines of the Royal Marine Commandos, special forces regiments, members of the Armed Forces generally, etc. than martial arts or civilian enthusiasts.

reply

On a more serious note, I agree with the notion that some previous posters have put up saying that the very concept and idea of a "warrior" in the way many people think of it is something that has been created through nostalgia and an unrealistic view that people on a whole were more honorable and decent in times past than they are now.
The "warriors" of yesterday, your samurai, your knights, all of those types, weren't in my opinion focusing on glory or trying to exemplify the image of a warrior. Now I'm sure that there were plenty who were, but on the whole, considering they were real people with flaws and weaknesses and not romanticized stereotypes, I'm sure many of the warriors who were born into those classes just did what they did seeing it simply as the only way they knew to live, not looking at it as a chance to be remembered as a great hero. I think it's the same way today and always will be. You can see it happening already. The soldiers of World War 2 are looked at as model soldiers, each one of them standing for American ideals, whereas at the time of their fight, they simply considered what they were doing as their duty, their job; many of them were probably not thinking of trying to be G.I. Joe.
I think it's civilians for the most part who have created this notion of the honorable warrior, when war has always been ugly and barbaric. The weapons used, the amount of men, the way in which it is fought doesn't matter, because at it's core it's always the same, and many of the men who fight in wars and have fought in them don't regard what they do or what they have done as glorious or heroic. It's easy to put soldiers on pedestals and call them "warriors" when you don't have to deal with the guilt or memory of having people around you die and killing others with your bare hands. I think the original poster was asking about where the warriors of legends have gone, and say to him: nowhere. They are where they have always been, in legends.
(P.S.- To clarify, I'm not anti-troops or anti-veterans, just against over-romanticizing them into warrior-superheroes, as many of them probably don't even think of themselves that way.)

reply

I don't understand.. how does defining modern soldiers and members of modern armies and types of fighting units as 'warriors' in any way put them on a pedestal? I don't think it does that.. I think it's just a statement of fact. A warrior is quite simply one whose profession is war, and therefore it seems reasonable to call all people engaged in that profession warriors. It is not their fault if people engaged in less selfless professions with less risk to themselves then go on to attach romantic notions to the word 'warrior' as in 'warrior-superheroes' likes you said..

Furthermore, perhaps they (modern military personnel) are not the people that everyone in society is immediately ready to admit looking up to (i.e. putting on a pedestal) or admire for their personal qualities. However, the fact remains that the profession of war is dangerous as it ever was (or rather, much more dangerous now) and demands special qualities of courage, self-sacrifice and patriotism that many noble-minded civilians recognise and respect. Not everybody has what it takes, to enlist in a modern armed force. Many of those who do, are rejected because they don't make the grade. So yes, these people are not only warriors by definition but are demonstrably also a cut above the people in civilian life and deserving of more respect and gratitude than for example the police, civil servants, business people and unproductive talkers of various description (lawyers, politicians and diplomats).

My point of view is quite simple: look around and you will see all the great warriors are here with us today, in great numbers. This is a time of 'war everywhere'. If all military personnel were to go around town in uniform, the original poster would recognise the warriors quite easily, and would not have suffered confusion.

reply

I suppose there is some degree of truth to your post. Especially in that you said that a warrior is anyone whose profession is war. Is suppose that is technically correct, but there are connotations that come along with the word, that, to me, are impossible to deny.

The word warrior is, in my opinion, outdated and just not very applicable. I mean, honestly, would you go up to a modern serviceman/woman and address him/her as "warrior"? They'd probably look at you like you had played too much D&D or something. I think soldier is more appropriate, that's all.


"It is not their fault if people engaged in less selfless professions with less risk to themselves then go on to attach romantic notions to the word 'warrior' as in 'warrior-superheroes' likes you said.. " I don't know about that. I think it's alright to have movie and literature characters be romanticized versions of soldiers and such, but I do think it's unhealthy when someone genuinely loses touch with the fact that modern solders and in fact all soldiers are simply people who are doing a job, and living their way of life. In a way, I think it's actually kind of disrespectful to treat soldiers like they're infallible idols of justice; you can forget someone's humanity in worshiping them.

Once again, the people in the armed forces make a potential sacrifice for their lives when they join, and although they do deserve to be commended for that, you have to remember that the circumstances for each soldier's enlistment are different. Some people enlist because they have nowhere to go, need college money, dropped out of school, etc. The motivation isn't always to courageously defend the nation (whether or not they end up doing so). You mention how not everyone has what it takes to join the army, which is funny considering that the army has recently lightened it's screening process and filtration for enlistment.

"these people are not only warriors by definition but are demonstrably also a cut above the people in civilian life" I could never agree with something as subjective as that. Before the army, these soldiers were you and me, were civilians. I have compassion for them because they are ordinary people, not because they're a cut above. You mention how calling soldiers "warriors" isn't putting them up on a pedestal, but then you contradict yourself and do exactly that by saying that they're worth more than you, me, and everyone in service to local communities and businesses.
Like I said, they aren't G.I. Joe's; many of them have families and homes just the same as you and me and are fairly ordinary people who have been trained to do extraordinary things. They aren't more important than cops, teachers, and business owners. They protect those people and all civilians on a global scale. If there were none of these "inferior" people, then the army wouldn't even have a purpose.
I will agree that many politicians and lawyers are full of crap, but there's even a handful of them that at least try and do make a difference. As for diplomats, how are they not important? Are you saying that you'd rather the soldiers you seem to value so much die needless deaths when passionate and intelligent diplomacy (which is admittedly uncommon) has the chance to stop the fighting before it starts?
Ask any soldier who's ever seen his comrade's head explode from a bullet right next to him what the value of diplomacy is and unless they're a bloodthirsty maniac who enjoys the heads of friends splattering all over the place before his eyes, he'll probably tell you that the value of such people is great.

reply

Firstly, you have stated twice that I am a civilian like yourself. What makes you think so? Do you think servicemen are incapable of using the internet? I am a civilian but waiting for admittance into my country's armed forces.

Secondly, you have said so many times that 'warrior' means an 'idol of justice' and even a 'superhero' that I think the chi has gone to your head... This is real nonsense. Again, you are making up romantic notions and then using them to dismiss the real-life men and women who are war professionals, i.e. warriors.

Thirdly, I come from an ethnic group that has a designated warrior caste, with all that goes with it. The members of this caste are not mostly enlisted in the armed forces, but those that are, are respected as warriors because of the training and ethos imparted from being a part of a modern military force. And in our tradition, warriors are not the top of the food chain but they are pretty close.

Fourthly, servicemen are indeed a cut above the useless eaters I mentioned before, because a lot of people who apply for the armed forces are rejected on medical, physical, character or other grounds. Those who are admitted, have to pass rigorous training which serves as a further filter.

Fifthly, what makes a warrior in your opinion? Tai chi? LOL

Seriously, being a warrior is just about overcoming others and disarming them, by use of force. You have a naivety in your perception of the purpose of diplomacy too. Do you think diplomacy exists to avoid war? Why does war exist? Get an education and perhaps a taste of military life, and then we'll discuss it again.

This thread sums up all the spoiled, spoon-fed misconceptions in the civilian world, concerning the world of warriors. Are you in the States? Go and TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE and talk to a US Marine, and ask them if they are a warrior. They are well acquainted and trained in the ethos, culture and history behind the concept of 'warrior', AND REFER TO THEMSELVES AS WARRIORS! So, start putting them on a 'pedestal' (since this is the kind of imagery you employ) instead of making arrogant assumptions all the time, and maybe you'll learn something! If you don't - your loss nobody else's.

reply

Listen, I don't think that "Tai Chi" or anything makes a warrior. They're soldiers, plain and simple. I think that using a term like that is outdated and archaic. The people in the armed forces are soldiers.
Use of the term warrior simply makes me think of some fantasy image of someone on an ancient battlefield doing incredible things and living with some romanticized code of honor and I just don't think that's right. You can't construct illusions like that about real people. That's all I've been saying.

I'm going to say this one more time: military servicemen are NOT a cut above anybody. Did you not read the portion of my post that said that they were once civilians themselves? Even you, waiting to get into your nation's army are currently one of the civilians you seem to look down upon so much. Are you saying that you simply getting into the army and getting a rank will immediately change who you are and make you better than me and everyone else who isn't in a military? I always thought that the respect you give soldiers came from the recognition of who they are and what they've done, not simply because they're wearing the uniform and looking the part, it's the individual and their actions that I have respect for; anyone can wear a uniform, and if you get accepted into your military, you wearing a uniform won't change you or make you better than anyone.

You keep talking about how military training roots out the "inadequate" people who aren't mentally or physically fit. You really think this makes the people who don't get through less worthy as human beings? If you do, I feel sorry for you. You sound like some sort of crazed supremacist the way you talk about military personnel being supierior to ordinary people. Don't you realize that the families of the soldiers you prize so much are civlians themselves? Why don't you try going to one of you're fellow recruits when you're in the army and tell them about your philosophy that civilains and public servants such as policeman and teachers as well as their families are human scum next you guys in the military. Hopefully, you'll get the crap kicked out of you and you'll lose some of your delusions too.

I don't care that your culture has a warrior class. It's 2007 and that doesn't amount to anything. It doesn't matter that your nation at one time considered warriors "higher up on the food chain", that has no bearing on the present and doesn't excuse you for having such ridiculous thoughts about being a soldier. You should be ashamed for using the past of your nation as a defense against your arrogance.

As for talking to a marine; I have. My uncle served three tours of duty in Vietnam as a Marine, and proceeded to serve on Cleveland SWAT for 30 years afterwards. Whenever I ask him about his time in Vietnam, he says it was the worst time of his life and he saw things that will never stop haunting him. He did not then, nor does he now consider himself to be some kind of warrior. He was a man doing his job and his duty so that he could protect the people and the country he cared for. You say you're waiting to get into your nation's armed forces, so I'm going to guess you're 16 or something? I'm sure you're very eager to get in and learn to kill and prove just how much of a "warrior" you really are, but let's see how you think of yourself when you're like my uncle and you've seen what being a soldier is really like. Then again, someone like you probably wouldn't last long in combat, because it's always the people like you who have something to prove and think they're Rambo who go first. That's where the tough guy image gets you in real life; maybe when you grow up a bit you'll realize that.

reply

A soldier is NOT a warrior. There's a diffrence like between heaven an hell (no, I don't want to say that one of them is better than the other). The very meaning of the word SOLDier is that he gets a sold (= money) to do a job which in his case is to kill on the battlefield and/or to do other military services (like rescue, ambulance, spy-actions, communication, tactics, strategy, observation, translation, etc). In other words if a soldier didn't get paid, he will not work and most of the soldier have no more attachements to their job than ordinary people have to their job.

But a warrior works for his leader, for his clan, for his family (not only blood-line), or for his village to keep freedom. A warrior get a small payment for his work but more important is that he is a member of his clan/family and is respected by them because the clan/familiy-system works only if everyone cares for each other and when there is a strict hierarchic system where everyone has is clear task. A warrior is someone who is born from a family of warriors, who are warriors since many many generations. From the age of a little child he continually learns the way of the warrior (which, in reality often has no code of honour or philosophic approaches).

There are exceptions like the ronins (master/leaderless samurai) or the wuxia (master/leaderless chinese traveling warrior "knights", even tough sometimes organised and follow a code of honour). These are completely free human beings, they do whatever they want, they serve for whoever they want, the decide completely by themselves whom they offer thier warrior skills. But they are nevertheless very diffrent from modern mercenaries because mercenaries are merely interested in money, a professional trained and experienced mercenary often get a relatively high payment. But the ronins and wuxia follow their own "world view" and have their own precept about wrong an right. They are often very poor and money is not what they are interested in first. To live a completely free life and to get food here and there (and women sometimes) is what they appreciate very highly for their life.

Yes, there are also modern soldiers who follow a code of honour and a rigide training regime and are very honest about their work, they identify themselves completely whit what they do BUT this is like to say they are schoolboys who love to go to school, do their homework, learn for tests/exams but in reality this kind of schoolboys and -girls are very, very, very few.

reply

I hadn't thought of the term warrior in that regard. If the issue is pay, don't you think that at least some of the samurai and knights you mentioned did what they did to lead good lives? Knights and samurai both lived quite well in comparison to peasants, and as long as they kept their lords happy by doing what they were supposed to, they kept their nice living situation. Is it such a stretch to suggest that some, perhaps many samurai/knights claimed to serve their lords out of a sense of duty or their honor code when in reality they just wanted to make a comfortable living situation? It's like how a doctor might say he/she is only in the medical profession to help people, but I begin to question their devotion to altruism when I see how much they're compensated for.

The fact of the matter is that even in ancient times "warriors" were compensated for what they did by having connections to royalty, servants, property, and many other perks. In some ways, the probability of a warrior/soldier being in service to his lord only for his own sake was much higher then than it is now. So I think to say that knights/samurai were without thought towards material possessions and pay during those times is not altogether true. If you define a warrior as someone who fights out of obligation and duty, and a soldier as someone who is "sold", then there were plenty of knights/samurai that were "sold"iers as well, they lived very nicely.

You also bring up the ronin/wuxia, another element about this question I hadn't thought about. Since these types were often poor and homeless, it would seem reasonable that surely these men wouldn't be thinking of anything other than honor, and that they were only rebelling against their lord because their lord defied their personal code and it didn't sit well with them...well there's holes in that one, too. Often, Ronin were men who were deemed dishonorable themselves, and did something to get kicked out of the clan. They were often called cowards, because if they did something worthy of Hara-Kiri, they would leave the clan to run out on the obligation and wander the land, thus becoming a Ronin. Ronin would sometimes also be the only surviving member of a clan and thus be a stray dog, accepting jobs requiring sword work to get by (this too would mean they were "sold"iers, as you put it, or mercenaries).
The fact is, they were concerned with money, because in a society where money exists, if you're homeless (like most Ronin were), you're always thinking about where you can get more money to pay for the next meal, the next night in the inn, and so forth. Ronin were again called dishonorable because they would sell their sword and loyalty to the highest bidder. If anyone DIDN'T follow a warrior code, it was traveling warriors like them, who needed to worry about where tommorow's food was coming from and not how to honor themselves and some lord. There's a Confucian proverb that reads something like, "One may maintain honor and face, or be totally free and happy, but not both." Many of the Ronin you speak of were men that cared not for honor to anyone, but rather wanted to live for themselves on their own terms.

I still say that the idea of a "warrior" as it's being talked about on here is something that has been romanticized by poets and storytellers since the warriors those stories are about have existed. We have to remember that the samurai, the knights, all of the ancient soldiers we glorify in stories were real humans with real temptations. They very well could have been driven by the selfish desire to make things better for themselves or simply get by however they could. That doesn't make their sacrifice any less worthy, but it does mean that we shouldn't take the depiction of soldiers as "warriors" in any story, old or modern as hard, undisputed fact.

reply

Please don't missunderstand me. I strongly believe that in the past much over 95% of ALL samurai/knights/ronin/etc weren't honorable or didn't tuly live up to a code of honour, their interest were simply to have a job to earn money/food, to have a social state/rank, power and influence. I it's completely right when they did that because they were like we just human beings. Human beings are full of faults and desires, irrespective of past, present or future time. Human beings are just animals with more intelligence and consciousness. Like animals we have to survive and it's our right to do whatever is necessary to have our daily meals.

On the other hand I strongly believe that there were some very very few real honorable warriors who always thought first on the whole topic before they thought about themselves. For this I bring up another kind of warrior, the shaolin warrior monks. Even of them, many weren't very honorable, kind or caring for the poors. But they were definitely groups of very very honorable shaolin warriors, as recorded in true "scientic" history. There is no doubt about that.

To conclude, we should just accept that we are human beings. Human beings are no angels, no gods and comparing to the universe we are just tiny unimportant dust! But to live means to survive! We cannot fight against this instinct. Sometimes we have to kill to survive, sometimes we make wrong decisions to survive, sometimes we hurt loved one's to survive, some of us have an easy life, some of us have a very hard life. This are just facts, we cannot change anything, it's just as it is. Wu must accept our and the lives of others.

reply

Well said. I think I had misunderstood you. Now that you've clarified things somewhat, I'll definetly agree with you that there was most likely some samurai, knights and monks, etc. who truly were good people, who did live up to the portrait we've painted of them in stories. Just like in modern times there are cops and politicians who aren't corrupt, just not many.
I wasn't trying to say that all of the soldiers of the past were the way I talked about, just most of them. That's how the way it is, regardless of time or place, like you said.
I also agree with you on your views about humanity, I think the same way about many of the points you brought up.

reply

[deleted]

ufc

reply

Literature has definitely romanticised what a Warrior/Hero should be.

yes, RYU!
when reading this whole discussion, I was just thinking how RYU represents the noble warrior. And this is actually shown in the Anime movie... which kicks the Live Action's ass so badly. Let's hope the Chun Li movie will be about how she becomes a worthy Street Fighter Warrior...

Also, in writing this, I realized another example is Goku, from Dragonball. No matter which enemy he faces, he wouldn't kill them unless absolutely necessary. This was commented in the Cell saga from memory when he sacrificed himself.

To me, there are still Warriors in the modern society. Wether they belong to a group or individually running around the jungle, what makes a warrior is determined by the people and ideals they express and affect.

reply

No Message

reply

No you are really asking "where have the heroes gone"

The warriors are all here, the fighting is just on such a large scale now that heroics are expected as the norm, its much harder for valor to be recognized and rewarded as hundreds of thousands are fighting in forces now.

True enough the standard is so high for soldiers now that gaining honor on the battlefield is ridiculously hard, it just shows the quality of the fighting force we have. As corny as it may sound, they are all heroes to me, the amount of brass on the chest is not how I make my decison, just serving and doing your part of the whole is.

Likewise for those of us not serving, the many make up the whole. Every American who gets up in the morning or night, puts on their uniform, be it a mc donalds shirt or a power suit is a part of the greater whole. I appreciate every quality worker out there who does their job with pride and does it well. I appreciate the ever rarer teenager who takes my fast food order and gets me on my way so I can get back to being productive. I appreciate the patrol officer who is looking to keep his area as safe as possible just by being in his squad car and being nosey. I appreciate the person who stocks the local Wal-Mart over night so that I can run in and get what I need to provide food and entertainment to my family. I appreciate them just as much as the doctor who transplanted my father's kidney because they are all parts of the system and each failure in part causes failure on the whole.

I know people in the system feel they are not important, and many ignorant people on many levels may perpetuate that, but the truth is every ant is important to the hive.

Just be the best ant you can be, that is what the little guy can do.

reply