Guest guest Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 The profession seems to be revisioning itself and searching for a new name. Apparently, the word " oriental " has been taken to be an ethnic slur. I never knew this and find it interesting as I have known many Asians as members of the AAAOM and other state societies with the word " oriental " in the title and never mentioned this, at least not to me. This seems to be political correctness at it's worst and I suspect is serving other agendas. Here are my preliminary thoughts on the subject. The most popular alternative being offered at the moment is " East Asian Medicine " . This name recognizes that Acupuncture etc. are not from India or Iraq. It also is inclusive of the contribution of countries such as Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. I have mixed feelings about the term " East Asian Medicine " . It seems to me that if we want to acknowledge the source of the medicine, then we should call what we do " Chinese medicine. " Were any of the classics written in a language other than Chinese? I understand the nationalistic pride of a Japanese or Korean who says, " I don't practice Chinese medicine, I practice Japanese/Korean medicine " . But I think we have to recognize nationalism and ethnic pride for what they are and that we shouldn't reward them in the name of inclusivity. It always struck me that Gichin Funakoshi changed the characters for karate from those meaning " Chinese Hand " to " Empty Hand " out of ethnic pride. The Koreans made a big deal out of the legendary Hwarang warriors to suggest that they had independantly discovered the martial arts. My 9th dan Korean master instructor used to laugh and say there wasn't the slightest shred of evidence that the martial arts originated anywhere but in China. California and Washington have apparently rushed to pass legislation to change the name without exercising the slightest bit of intelligence. Apparently people are terrified of engaging in rational inquiry for fear of being labeled racist " . And apparently, message parlors, rug dealerships, and restaurants can still use the name " oriental " . Surprisingly the term was only deemed to be derogatory when applied to the practice of medicine. Admittedly this isn't a topic I know much about, but I will note that not a single person of Asian descent has ever mentioned to me in 30 years that term was racist. If indeed the term is racist, the meager evidence of which exists, as far as I know on one wiki page, then we shouldn't use it. But the term " East Asian Medicine " is ponderous, and caters to political correctness and not sanity. If we want to acknowledge the contributions of culture to the ongoing development of the medicine as it's spread globally I think it's clear that many of the most significant advancements in the medicine have been made in the West in the last 50 years. The simple fact is, that Chinese medicine has evolved to become a global medicine since the Han Dynasty. Its migration throughout Asia formed the logical route of its expansion in a world without mass media. But it's Journey through the different cultures of Asia were just temporary resting points on it's route to become the most sophisticated holistic/integral medicine on planet earth. If we are to choose a name that acknowledges the medicine's past and its source we should simply call it " Chinese medicine " and if we want to choose a name that acknowledges what this medicine is now and will be in the future, then we should come together as a community and chose a name together that reflects the evolution of the medicine in our own hands and as a world medicine. Sure, this might mean stretching a bit, being patient, and working with each other but that can only come to the good. I'd like to think we as a profession have matured enough to take on such a task. Regards, Lonny Jarrett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Hi Lonny: I agree that " East Asian Medicine " glosses over some historical facts and may cause a weakening of our medicine by generalising it too much and inaccurately. The concern with " Oriental " as I have come to understand it is not really something that an ethnic Chinese would neccessarily pick up on, just like the latin-american spanish " gringo " is not something a white north american would pick up on, even though it is one of the worst epithets a latinamerican can launch against a north american white. The concern with Orientalism comes from " non-naive " ethnic asians and really started with Said in the late 70s. This work (Orientalism, E. Said, 1978) was a central part of the post-colonialist explosion which depended on the accumulation of sufficient numbers of ethnic (non-western european) scholars in the social sciences speaking english that a critique of " white thinking " could be voiced clearly and consistently in english. Orientalism is the co-optation of the representation of many peoples. It is a term chosen and defined by european explorers and thinkers to mean what *they* wanted it to mean, without the participation of the peoples so being named. In that sense it is a misrepresentation and, at times, it is racist. It is no different from calling First Nations members " Indians " . Really, what it comes down to, is it's just kind of stupid. That said, I don't see a problem with reclaiming the words " orient " and " oriental " and using them to name our medicine, but I would hope that we can become aware of the trajectory of the term in order to avoid pitfalls that the use of the word may trigger, both in ourselves and in others. Reclamation of labels is a time - honoured tradition of any people who have experienced domination. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 David is correct. In Florida as one of those states.....it is traditional Chinese medical concepts AND modern Oriental medical techniques..... and not about to change. Since the Chinese have their two power seats on the Board of Acupuncture for the past 29 years they would have screamed a long time ago if they considered it an insult. Even Wu Laoshi has no problem with either the term Chinese medicine or Oriental medicine and I would think that an individual who started studying this medicine in the ancient Chinese language at 15 and now after 60 years of practice would have commented about changing either word. Yes....some states need to get a grip. Richard Freiberg In a message dated 12/11/2009 7:45:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, acuman1 writes: Every 10 years or so, this PC deal comes up again. Admittedly, there are more graduates of the Berkeley Asian studies program to complain about " Oriental " , but the word has not been in use in this way or a problem for about a hundred years and no one in living memory recalls its being used in a negative connotation that I have ever met or heard of. If such a thing is such a big thing in reality, then I guess Mick Jagger is gong to have to change his name because I'm Irish. If precision is what is called for, perhaps " East Asian Ethno-Medicine " or EAEM, but DEAEM sound like a anti-drug agency rallying call for a doctoral designation. Asian includes Korea to Siberia to Turkey to India. Simply, it has been Oriental Medicine since its inception. Someday the west coast will get a grip and drop some absurd legislation. The closest alternative is what the Chinese call it, which is , but if I am to be a Doctor of or a Doctor, patients wonder why I am not Chinese. Its difficult enough that they wonder why I'm not Oriental. It is already in legislatin in many states as Oriental Medicine, by the way. David Molony On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29:27 PM, Lonny <_Revolution_ (Revolution) > wrote: As far as I'm concerned, since " Oriental " apparently is offensive to some then " East Asian medicine " is fine if we want a term that honors it's history. Some claim that the notion that the medicine originated in China is a result of Chinese imperialism and the fact of it having been expressed originally in the Chinese language but that, in fact, there were initial contributions from other cultures. I have no idea if that's true. Anyone? Seems to me that language counts for a lot. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Hugo, If Oriental is, in fact, racist then we shouldn't used it. On the other hand calling it " East Asian " is going too far in the other direction. It actually is " Chinese medicine " historically, isn't it? And it actually isn't " Chinese " medicine any more. So, I think a lot more thought has to be given as to whether we want to honor history or acknowledge the present and create the future with intelligence rather than with knee jerk emotional responses inculcated with political correctness. -Lonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 “Traditional East Asian Medicine” or “Traditional Chinese Medicin” would sound better :-) Stefano Marcelli Italy --- The most popular alternative being offered at the moment is " East Asian Medicine " . Regards, Lonny Jarrett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 I think we want to stay away from the term " traditional " since we are practitioners of a living medicine and not anthropologists. I just had a long talk With George Whiteside, president of the Washington State professional society. He discussed with me the need to name the medicine we practice so that it becomes clear that we aren't just technicians. It's true that " acupuncturist " can sound like we are technicians who insert needles. As far as I'm concerned, since " Oriental " apparently is offensive to some then " East Asian medicine " is fine if we want a term that honors it's history. Some claim that the notion that the medicine originated in China is a result of Chinese imperialism and the fact of it having been expressed originally in the Chinese language but that, in fact, there were initial contributions from other cultures. I have no idea if that's true. Anyone? Seems to me that language counts for a lot. However the bigger issue to me is what is the medicine now and what future do we envision for it? Clearly it is now a world medicine being practiced at many different cultural levels of development and value systems. Is it: 1. Holistic? Not necessarily! Most people don't practice it that way. 2. Integral? Even less people practice it that way (How many 10 people? 20?) What term or phrase would portray what it is we do? I suspect that calling it " East Asian " Medicine might be politically expedient in states like Washington that have to update their limited scopes of practice. WDYT? Can anyone come up with a term or phrase that relates to what the medicine is that isn't too small? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Every 10 years or so, this PC deal comes up again. Admittedly, there are more graduates of the Berkeley Asian studies program to complain about " Oriental " , but the word has not been in use in this way or a problem for about a hundred years and no one in living memory recalls its being used in a negative connotation that I have ever met or heard of. If such a thing is such a big thing in reality, then I guess Mick Jagger is gong to have to change his name because I'm Irish. If precision is what is called for, perhaps " East Asian Ethno-Medicine " or EAEM, but DEAEM sound like a anti-drug agency rallying call for a doctoral designation. Asian includes Korea to Siberia to Turkey to India. Simply, it has been Oriental Medicine since its inception. Someday the west coast will get a grip and drop some absurd legislation. The closest alternative is what the Chinese call it, which is , but if I am to be a Doctor of or a Doctor, patients wonder why I am not Chinese. Its difficult enough that they wonder why I'm not Oriental. It is already in legislatin in many states as Oriental Medicine, by the way. David Molony On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29:27 PM, Lonny <Revolution wrote: As far as I'm concerned, since " Oriental " apparently is offensive to some then " East Asian medicine " is fine if we want a term that honors it's history. Some claim that the notion that the medicine originated in China is a result of Chinese imperialism and the fact of it having been expressed originally in the Chinese language but that, in fact, there were initial contributions from other cultures. I have no idea if that's true. Anyone? Seems to me that language counts for a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Lonny, What about " integrative Chinese medicine " ? since what we study in school is not " classical " or " traditional " , except in the sense that it is part of a tradition that is about 60 years old. It is not entirely " holistic " or " integral " , but is " integrative " in the sense that we study schools as diverse as Japanese meridian therapy, Korean 4 needle technique, Allopathic pharmacology and anatomy/physiology. `K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 John, I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is to find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past. Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in the West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced according to many different value systems across cultures at different levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what we are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? " Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc Chinese Medicine Revolution Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000 Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. John, I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is to find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past. Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in the West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced according to many different value systems across cultures at different levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what we are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Global medicine sounds too " global " , Chinese medicine might sound too " local " . " Global " ? GCM? I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine, because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people who developed the classics which are the foundation of Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that we've got. K On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? " > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc > > > > Chinese Medicine > Revolution > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000 > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. > > > > > > John, > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is to > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past. > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in the > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced > according to many different value systems across cultures at different > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what we > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our TCM using specific methodology. But as far as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better very quickly. Oh semantics... Don Chinese Medicine johnkokko Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800 Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. Global medicine sounds too " global " , Chinese medicine might sound too " local " . " Global " ? GCM? I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine, because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people who developed the classics which are the foundation of Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that we've got. K On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? " > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc > > > > Chinese Medicine > Revolution > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000 > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. > > > > > > John, > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is to > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past. > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in the > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced > according to many different value systems across cultures at different > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what we > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Yes... we all practice medicine, but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds. Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on. We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what we learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2 millennia of changes. That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most honest and comprehensive name for what we do. K On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is > the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral > medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our > TCM using specific methodology. But as f r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better > very quickly. Oh semantics... > > > > Don > > > > Chinese Medicine > johnkokko > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800 > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. > > > > > > Global medicine sounds too " global " , > Chinese medicine might sound too " local " . > " Global " ? GCM? > > I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine, > because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people > who > developed the classics which are the foundation of > Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula > systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not > sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China > geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that > we've got. > > K > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? " > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > Revolution > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000 > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. > > > > > > > > > > > > John, > > > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is > to > > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past. > > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in > the > > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced > > according to many different value systems across cultures at different > > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what > we > > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " > medicine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM, richard writes: > > I wonder what others think. > > Richard James > The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a medical thought process that is based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms of using sense and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes while recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature. The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and understood by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using to change results. Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it is they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them, some integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new view on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them, many have gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang, and the interconnectedness of the body via meridians. But, that is just me. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Yes, definitions. Who defines what is being discussed? I practice integral medicine no matter what one may believe. That's what I call it and that is what my patients believe and that's what I do. I don't follow any " man " such a Lonny, Master Tong, etc. I follow my own path in finding the answers to our wonderful medicine and I make it what I will. This is what I do. If I followed a particular man or style, then that's what I would be doing. But I practice Dr. Snow's Acupuncture and Integrated Medical Systems. I make a mid-six figure income doing what I do so I'm doing something right. I went the extra mile and earned the DAOM, MPH, MS, etc. so I am relatively educated. And no matter what anyone says about that degree (esp. those that haven't actually done it), we delved into the classics at a much deeper level that the master's program. I'm a better practitioner for it. And most of all, I have a very high success in treatment rate which is why I have a booming practice. One is a technician until he makes the medicine his own. That applies to martial arts as well. I've seen many so-called masters that were not because they did not make the art a part of themselves. Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one. Sincerely, Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. Chinese Medicine johnkokko Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:24:06 -0800 Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. Yes... we all practice medicine, but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds. Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on. We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what we learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2 millennia of changes. That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most honest and comprehensive name for what we do. K On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is > the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral > medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our > TCM using specific methodology. But as f r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better > very quickly. Oh semantics... > > > > Don > > > > Chinese Medicine > johnkokko > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800 > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. > > > > > > Global medicine sounds too " global " , > Chinese medicine might sound too " local " . > " Global " ? GCM? > > I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine, > because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people > who > developed the classics which are the foundation of > Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula > systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not > sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China > geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that > we've got. > > K > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? " > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > Revolution > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000 > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. > > > > > > > > > > > > John, > > > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is > to > > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past. > > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in > the > > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced > > according to many different value systems across cultures at different > > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what > we > > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " > medicine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 I would like to add a different dimension to this thread, if I may. I am new here, so please forgive me if I am going over old stuff. I note from the earlier contributions that the debate seems to be seeking a title that can be used in common to label what (all) practitioners of TCM do. My concern is that this tendency, although desired by the rule-makers, is counter to the creative development and diversification of our practice. I am registered with the British Acupuncture Council, and also with the General Medical Council. Thus I am commonly labelled as either a `Traditional Acupuncturist' or a `Medical Acupuncturist'. But neither fits what I do. The tradition I grew up in was scientism and atheism. I was then exposed to the European traditions of acupuncture and Humanistic/Transpersonal Psychology, and my work draws heavily on them. I have since, of course, been exposed to " TCM " but it has not influenced my work as much as the others (I do not use herbs, just as I do not use pharmaceuticals in my practice – I prefer to avoid putting chemicals into people). I am also very much inspired by the `holistic' tendency in modern practice, with its roots in post-modernism and systems theory. Similarly, I look to developments in many areas of exploration to inform my work (and the development of the profession) in the future, such as: narrative medicine; neurophysiology; chaos and complexity theory; and new developments in the understanding of connective tissue, to name a few. And I would include new developments in our understanding of `Qi energetics' in that. In the light of this I recently used the title `Holistic Western Acupuncture' for a workshop I ran, and next Spring I am giving a talk " Holistic Western Acupuncture: what's in a name? " . Now I found myself being berated for an insult to the Chinese. I was told that the phrase `Western Acupuncture' is a contradiction and inherently insulting. " You can't win " I told myself! I had thought that it would be more insulting to use the title `Chinese acupuncture' for what I do, since it clearly is not that. Clearly what I do is acupuncture – I use the insertion of needles for therapeutic purposes, guided partly by ideas of meridians, Qi, etc. By using the description `holistic western' I sought to distinguish between what I do and what is offered both in the Chinese tradition (with its historical and cultural implications), and in Medical Acupuncture (which is essentially reductionistic in its approach). I suppose I am an empiricist rather than a traditionalist, in that I value what works, rather than dogma. However I have no wish to insult any of the traditions, which I see as valued sources of inspiration. I wonder what others think. Richard James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Since has been practicing in America, may we call it " American- " ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 The fuss is just that.... " something to FUSS about " . Richard Freiberg In a message dated 12/13/2009 4:08:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, zrosenbe writes: I don't understand the fuss. " Chinese medicine " in my opinion is good enough, and that's what I will continue to call what I practice. In Chinese it is 'zhong-yi', which means Chinese medicine, in Japanese the herbal medicine is called " Kanpo " or medicine of the Han (people), and I understand that it is the same in Korea. The origins of the medicine are in the same classical texts such as the Su Wen, Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, all of which were written and developed in China. As far as indigenous forms of medicine go, if one practices " Japanese acupuncture " , " Korean hand acupuncture " , " Tibetan medicine " , etc., why not just say so? Rather than come up with some clumsy name to try to explain it all. . Z'ev Rosenberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 This is fine for me, as well, as it means the same as Oriental Medicine. I just hate to give in to the PC police...., and it is easier to mentally trademark Oriental Medicine than it is , plus if one is called a doctor, like in the days of the OMD, people want you to be Chinese or are surprised when you aren't. David Molony In a message dated 12/13/09 4:08:15 PM, zrosenbe writes: > I don't understand the fuss. " Chinese medicine " in my opinion is good > enough, and that's what I will continue to call what I practice. In Chinese > it is 'zhong-yi', which means Chinese medicine, in Japanese the herbal > medicine is called " Kanpo " or medicine of the Han (people), and I understand > that it is the same in Korea. The origins of the medicine are in the same > classical texts such as the Su Wen, Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, all of which > were written and developed in China. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 I think its a shame that we are moving away from the term, " Traditional Chinese Medicine " AKA: TCM. Its a term that laypeople feel proud to know about AND it has the added bonus of being easy to shorten for conversational purposes to TCM. As a friend from Alaska once told me, " People around here sit around at lunch and discuss TCM like other circles pretentiously discuss Kierkagaard to make themselves look cool " . I have on many occasions heard patients of mine proudly exclaim, upon receiving their first herbal fromula, " Cool! I'm getting a Traditional formula! " . Yes, it has evolved beyond Chinese medicine. But our roots come from TCM and it makes sense to honor that--and it also makes sense to make use of the fact that a fair amount of laypeople already relate to that term. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by confusing people with a constantly changing name. What kind of business sense is that?! Chinese Medicine , acuman1 wrote: > > > In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM, > richard writes: > > > > > > I wonder what others think. > > > > Richard James > > > > The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a > medical thought process that is > based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the > political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms of using sense > and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes while > recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature. > > The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing > and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to > observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and understood > by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within > Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing > are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in > their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using to > change results. > > Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the > different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each > other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it is > they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn > different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them, some > integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is > anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new view > on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his > observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them, many have > gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools > used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang, and > the interconnectedness of the body via meridians. > > But, that is just me. > > David Molony > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Hi Donald. That name has occurred to me in the past. Another name that has occurred to me is " human medicine " . If we wanted to be snippy we could call it " real medicine " . I do not agree with Lonny that most of us are not practicing " Chinese medicine " . He's totally wrong on that one. Hugo --Donald- How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? " --- ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Hi John: --John- Global medicine sounds too " global " , Chinese medicine might sound too " local " . " Global " ? GCM? --- GCM isn't too bad, you know. In our modern world, anything that breaks down into a three letter acronym will be successful (and especially if you are Singaporean). I like GCM. On a side note, my personal problem with " Chinese " is the " -ese " part. Not Canadian, but Canadese. Not French, but Francese (very close to how they use it, actually). Not United states-ian, but United States-ese. Maybe it works though, because like John says, it has been a collaboration amongst a wide group of ethnicities, so it's not exactly " China medicine " but rather " Chin-eeese medicine " . --John- describe these originators, since even today, China geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that we've got. --- It's closer to 90 if we take the ethnic people's own definitions rather than the government's decisions based on misunderstanding and convenience. Just taking your point further in terms of how many different types of people have contirbuted to GCM. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Hi all: --Donald- Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one. --- I have several. Hugo (your points are well taken) ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 I don't understand the fuss. " Chinese medicine " in my opinion is good enough, and that's what I will continue to call what I practice. In Chinese it is 'zhong-yi', which means Chinese medicine, in Japanese the herbal medicine is called " Kanpo " or medicine of the Han (people), and I understand that it is the same in Korea. The origins of the medicine are in the same classical texts such as the Su Wen, Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, all of which were written and developed in China. As far as indigenous forms of medicine go, if one practices " Japanese acupuncture " , " Korean hand acupuncture " , " Tibetan medicine " , etc., why not just say so? Rather than come up with some clumsy name to try to explain it all. . On Dec 13, 2009, at 11:50 AM, heylaurag wrote: > I think its a shame that we are moving away from the term, " Traditional " AKA: TCM. Its a term that laypeople feel proud to know about AND it has the added bonus of being easy to shorten for conversational purposes to TCM. As a friend from Alaska once told me, " People around here sit around at lunch and discuss TCM like other circles pretentiously discuss Kierkagaard to make themselves look cool " . I have on many occasions heard patients of mine proudly exclaim, upon receiving their first herbal fromula, " Cool! I'm getting a Traditional formula! " . > > Yes, it has evolved beyond Chinese medicine. But our roots come from TCM and it makes sense to honor that--and it also makes sense to make use of the fact that a fair amount of laypeople already relate to that term. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by confusing people with a constantly changing name. What kind of business sense is that?! > > Chinese Medicine , acuman1 wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM, > > richard writes: > > > > > > > > > > I wonder what others think. > > > > > > Richard James > > > > > > > The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a > > medical thought process that is > > based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the > > political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms of using sense > > and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes while > > recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature. > > > > The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing > > and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to > > observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and understood > > by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within > > Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing > > are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in > > their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using to > > change results. > > > > Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the > > different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each > > other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it is > > they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn > > different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them, some > > integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is > > anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new view > > on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his > > observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them, many have > > gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools > > used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang, and > > the interconnectedness of the body via meridians. > > > > But, that is just me. > > > > David Molony > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Hey there fellow practitioners Here's a koan for you: Who put the Chi in the word Chinese? Don't we , at heart and root, practice Chi Medicine/Healing/Health Care? For you consideration! Turiya Hill, L.Ac. - Hugo Ramiro Chinese Medicine Sunday, December 13, 2009 12:25 PM Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine. Hi all: --Donald- Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one. --- I have several. Hugo (your points are well taken) ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.