Regarding the very interesting subject of Chinese water torture discussed in this recent column;
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010112.html
I am in no doubt that Houdini gave the name to one of his stunts, and I am equally certain that de Marsiliis may have been the first to introduce the dripping water torture to Europe, and may possibly even have invented it. So how did this particular form of torture become referred to as Chinese? I am not certain I agree with Cecil’s conclusion.
Confucius wrote: “Eventually, drops of water will make a hole in a stone”, (please feel free to improve upon the translation). This certainly indicates that the Chinese were well aware of the power of dripping water long before de Marsiliis tortured his first victim. Of course it does not prove that the Chinese did perform the water torture, perhaps someone like Marco Polo brought tales of such things back to Italy. Or perhaps, someone had heard Confucius wise words the day before he heard about the dripping water torture and confused the two. Or perhaps de Marsiliis had heard Confucius words (in Italian).
The point is, I don’t think the Chinese reference to this particular form of torture can be credited to Houdini.
Well, like most of Confucius’ writings (consult your nearest fortune cookie), that quote is more metaphorical than factual, and is designed to be taken that way. Of course the Chinese knew that water has destructive powers, but every other civilization that borders on moving water would know it as well, it’s pretty damn obvious.
The quote actually sounds more daoist (taoist) than Confucian. Daoism’s concept of the yin and yang (“high” and “low”) is that nature prefers the low. As an example, Lao Tsu used the example of water, a weak material which belongs to the low, in nature it is able to carve channels through land. Sounds like Confucius just borrowed that notion. (Actually, it’s been awhile since I studied Chinese philosophy, forgive me if I messed up somewhere here.)
I prefer the idea that a westerner heard the quote and took it too literally. You can’t accurately call it Chinese unless there’s evidence that the Chinese actually took the concept as a means of torture.
Actually, I prefer Cecil’s explaination the most. “Chinese” has been synonymous with “backward” for a long, long time.
I am note disagreeing with Cecil regarding the Chinese synonyms and their origin. I am only disagreeing that it was a stunt named by Houdini that gave the name to this particular form of torture. You will also note that I am not saying that the Chinese did perform the torture. I am merely giving additional possibilities to which in my view was only a theory given on Cecil’s part.
That said I am not sure how you have concluded that the quote in question is metaphorical rather than factual. A steady continuous drip of water will indeed make a hole in a stone over a given period of time.
Unless you meant that the quote I gave was taken out of context, in which case I confess that Confucius took this as a metaphor to describe persistence. The point I was making though, was that this particular quote may have confused someone into thinking that the torture was Chinese in origin (which still wasn’t completely disproved). In addition, I was also suggesting the possibility that this quote may have given de Marsiliis the idea in the first place.
I agree that most civilizations bordering on moving water would have been aware of water’s destructive powers. Floods come to mind. However, to realize that small quantities of water over time can also destroy, that realization would have required some thought. If it was Confucius, Lao Tsu, or some one else, I couldn’t say, but it certainly would not have been common knowledge until it had been discovered.
Over twenty five years ago I went to an exhibit at the Floating Foundation of Photography on the Hudson River in Riverside Park in New York City. The exhibit was about prisons. I distinctly remember a picture of a convict in a water torture device. I think the photo was from Sing-Sing. The prisoner was blindfolded, restrained, and sitting in a chair. Above him was what looked like a miniature wooden water tower. There was a kind of spout that aimed at his forehead. That’s all I remember. I’m not making this up.
Although the name actually derives (or at least the Ossining Town Council says so) from the Sint Sinck tribe of Amerinds, the superficially “Chinese” name of “Sing Sing” could therefore be a factor.
Before I’d accept the “Confucius” alternative, I’d want to see evidence that anyone from the West regarded this as a specifically Chinese insight.
I am curious if anyone knows the origin of Chinese to refer to confused, bumbling, chaotic, etc.
I believe these came about through racist attitudes watching Chinese immigrants in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. The immigrants were feared and despised, so the Chinese appellation was applied to anything derogatory.
But I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong. Can someone provide alternative explanation? Or back me up?
Well, “The Chinese were a minority and therefore ‘Chinese’ became an all-purpose derogatory term,” is rather ingenuous.
The usual “bad” senses of “Chinese” are “madly rushed and disorganized”, “opposite”, and “cruelly subtle”. The first would no doubt come from the extreme population density of 19th-century Chinese cities and Western Chinatowns, tending to produce a sensation of bustle which, combined with unintelligible (to the Western ear) speech with “wrong” tonal cues (to the Western ear, occasioned by the tonal nature of the Chinese language), easily results in the notion signified by “Chinese fire drill”. The second probably derives from the widespread, albeit false, notion that China is antipodal to America. The third – well, traditional Chinese culture does have some aspects that are striking and horrifying to Westerners, some, at least, deservedly so, such as foot binding and routine use of public torture in criminal trials (Chinese law required a confession for a guilty verdict). Other factors could be traditional East Asian notions of courtesy, which can seem unfrank to Westeners, and perhaps even the epicanthic fold itself, which suggests facial expressions that, in a European, would indicate hostility.
I’ll add some facts which I gleaned from reading my Lighter, American Slang.
He has nothing to say about Chinese Water Torture
His earliest cite for the term Chinese used in a derisive manner in print in the US is 1898, military in origin, and saying…if the gunnery isn’t too Chinese.
The bumbling aviator quotes come from 1918, military; Chinese landing=wing low.
Chinese fire drill doesn’t appear in print until late 1940’s-early 50’s. Again, talking about WWII.
I’ll add a theory of my own here, drawn from reading Lighter’s references to China, Chinese, Chink, Chinaman,etc.. I am of the opinion that much of the derogatory meaning of words related to the Chinese comes from the military and possibly from the British military who experience the Chinese as the enemy during the opium wars of 1839-42. Nothing makes for slang better than an enemy and the military. This is not to try to shift blame to the Brits, but rather offer an origin.
The setup sounds similar to one used for “treatment” of the insane at one point. Where they were restrained and ice-cold water dumped over them to shock/punish them.
It may have also been used for criminals.
Trying to find a reference now.
Oh, I see, you’re saying you’ve never heard it mean bumbling, and wanted an example.
I was just paraphrasing from the column:
To be fair, I’d never heard of “Chinese Ace” or “Chinese navy” before.
My question was about how “Chinese” came to be used as this type of descriptor. John W. Kennedy provided the explanation. It comes from cultural differences and perceptions. I suppose it is arguable as to whether that constitutes racism or not.