Is Chinese kung fu really just fancy footwork

There is an article titled "Promoting Chinese culture, can not be rushed". The article's intention is good, but some language problems in the exposition lower the standard of the article. The article contains a sentence that reads, "Chinese culture is not just paper cuts, square characters, fancy fists and Chinese costumes, but should also include the vitality of Chinese civilization, which has lasted for thousands of years, as well as the vitality of modern China, which is flourishing."

A simple mistake of "flower fist show legs" is clearly a poor choice of words. I don't think many people would agree that "showboating" should be included in Chinese culture. The author may have meant to say "martial arts", but how can kung fu be replaced by "flowery fists and legs"?

Despite the fact that there are "fists" and "legs" in "flowery fists and legs", it has nothing to do with the Chinese martial arts, and has nothing to do with the word "flowery" or "superficial". "and "superficial articles" are similar. We can invite the Shaolin monks to perform a set of Chinese martial arts, but we cannot invite them to perform a set of flowery fists and legs.

How is such an obviously derogatory term still justifiably included in Chinese culture? If the error in the derogatory use of the word above is relatively small, the error in the second half of this sentence is a bit bigger. In the first half of the sentence, there are paper-cutting, block-lettering, Chinese costumes and martial arts, and this logic has actually jumped around a lot in terms of caste relationships, seriously exceeding the norms of the logic and organization of Chinese cultural expression, but because after all, it hasn't yet gone beyond the scope of Chinese culture, it's still in the realm of the tolerable.

In the second half of the sentence, some kind of "vitality" and "vigor" is also included in Chinese culture is a bit strange. The first several items are all very concrete, all visible and tangible, and then suddenly a "vitality" and "vigor" comes out, which seems a bit unorthodox. Moreover, the meaning of "vitality" and "vigor" and the above paper cuts and Chinese characters are more than 108,000 miles away from each other! How many generic barriers do they have to cross before they come together? Moreover, I'm afraid it will take a lot of hard work to prove whether "vitality" and "vigor" can enter the larger concept of culture.

It is not true that there are no abstractions in Chinese culture. In the systematic generalization of Chinese culture, the main aspects are abstract, such as Chinese philosophy, Chinese medicine, Chinese astronomy and so on. But there is certainly no place for "vitality" and "vigor" here. The vitality and dynamism of Chinese civilization are important and need to be studied, but they do not necessarily have to be included in Chinese culture in order to be significant.

Secondly, I would like to talk about the redundancy of the second half of the sentence. If we understand it well, the meaning of this complete sentence should be something like this. We should not only introduce the specifics of Chinese culture in terms of paper-cutting, Chinese characters, martial arts, clothing, etc., but we should also show the tremendous vitality that has made it possible for Chinese civilization to continue for thousands of years. The words "in the process of" and "embodied by" can be deleted. And modern China's growing vitality" should also be put into another sentence in another expression, do not have to pile all the meaning into a sentence.

There are other problems with this article, which I won't repeat for lack of space. It seems that a very good intention, if there is not a standardized expression, or easy to lose the merit. The basics of language can not be taken lightly!