{"id":762,"date":"2015-02-25T21:54:02","date_gmt":"2015-02-26T04:54:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/?p=762"},"modified":"2015-02-25T21:54:02","modified_gmt":"2015-02-26T04:54:02","slug":"the-world-of-weiqi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/archives\/762","title":{"rendered":"The World of Weiqi"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Moskowitz makes the argument that weiqi serves many purposes in China. It serves several religious agendas, it relates to\u00a0both traditional and modern society, all while attributing to nationalist and globalist ideologies. \u00a0The most interesting manifestation of weiqi, is what Moskowitz called the &#8220;the world of weiqi&#8221; (p. 69). \u00a0While Moskowitz makes a very interesting argument about how superiority in wieqi is used to boost nationalist sentiments in China, a caveat to that argument is that there is a tremendous amount of\u00a0respect attributed to\u00a0opponents. \u00a0He sites an article describing Japan&#8217;s fall from weiqi prominence, stating that &#8220;it laments the loss of a worthy adversary, perhaps in some sense even a father figure, to the world of weiqi&#8221; (p.69). While China and Japan have had rocky relations throughout their long histories, weiqi transcends international politics and fosters respect and admiration, based not on national ties but on skill. \u00a0Moskovitz puts it nicely when he says, &#8220;it can &#8230; be a free space to transcend those borders in the shared appreciation of, and membership in, an increasingly international community of Weiqi players in East Asia&#8221; (p.69). \u00a0The world of weiqi is its own community, dominated by Asian societies. \u00a0It creates a connection, a shared culture that is otherwise difficult to distinguish. Two other aspects that can help to contribute to this shared culture, is hand conversation and brain studies. While neither are directly paralleled to the idea of the weiqi community and its cohesion, I feel that they are important factors. \u00a0Moskowitz quotes Hong Feng a weiqi instructor when he describes hand converstation, Feng states, &#8220;&#8216;When two people play Weiqi they don&#8217;t speak. \u00a0Their conversation is on the board&#8221; (p. 106). \u00a0Thus weiqi could be considered a universal language, similar to chess, in that anybody who understands the rules can play together without worrying about spoken misconceptions. \u00a0They can communicate, in a deep way through their game play and strategy. \u00a0Feng relates hand conversation\u00a0to the polite respect players feel toward one another while playing the game, thus relating back to how the wieqi community has nationless characteristics. \u00a0As for the brain research, studies have shown that &#8220;weiqi increases right-brain dominance&#8221; (p.88). \u00a0Moskowitz goes on to say that, &#8220;Weiqi players rely heavily on spatial recognition and the memory of certain patterns as well as the possibility that there are minor physiological changes when learning the game at a young age&#8221; (p.88). While this connection may seem\u00a0strange, it gives the weiqi community a unifying physical trait can be attributed to the group as a whole regardless of their respective birth-nations. \u00a0In other words, weiqi players have similar brain anatomies that either result from or directly contributes to the way they play weiqi. \u00a0The weiqi community thus champions a shared anatomy, language, and culture, it is\u00a0in a\u00a0small way its very own nation built entirely around the ancient game of weiqi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Moskowitz makes the argument that weiqi serves many purposes in China. It serves several religious agendas, it relates to\u00a0both traditional and modern society, all while attributing to nationalist and globalist ideologies. \u00a0The most interesting manifestation of weiqi, is what Moskowitz called the &#8220;the world of weiqi&#8221; (p. 69). \u00a0While Moskowitz makes a very interesting argument&hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link-p\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/archives\/762\"><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=762"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/762\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":765,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/762\/revisions\/765"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}