p.s. Hey! You’ll regret that. =P

Yeah, you definitely have a point there, but I think we’re just comparing different things. I meant capoeira reminded me of philosophy only in the sense that their discussions are both lengthy and can be taken really seriously, yet ultimately are kind of pointless, at least from a trying-to-reach-a-conclusion point of view!

But as for the actual sources of these discussions/arguments themselves, the divisions and attitudes and so on, you’re right on. My dad got really mad at me once because I said something without thinking about capoeira and he said it sounded too much like (organized) religion for him, everything was “all or nothing”/”with us or against us”.

Haha, you reminded me of this other quote I considered using for my intro, but decided it wasn’t as appropriate: “Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses.” XD

In Religion, people will say that the other religion is okay but behind closed doors will talk junk all day.

as I said. that is just the other viewpoint. It is not necessarily mine. What I have seen were two different kind of groups. The ones did have a broad and open mind, accepting everybody. There we had a huge fluctuation. A lot of people coming, alot of people going, few staying. Those who were staying, were staying out of free will and were good parts of the group. The others were not that broad minded or did have some unfavourable philosophy, a very authoritative teacher and so on. People who went there went there oce and were sure they wont go there again. So the flux of people was smaller. The amount of people who stayed was also saller. But those were much more into the group. At the end it does not make a big difference.

For inter-group relations: there will be always problems and issues between groups. I think that was prominent before the big expansion of capoeira, too. But nowadays capoeira is organized mainly in groups and academies, thus it is much more prominent. I dont participate in intergroup fights/arguments, but I also do not try to stop them. People have to sort that out and I think todays there is much more tolerance to other groups than it was before. Even between regionalistas and angoleiros, and that was, in former times, not always the case.

alright… course starts again. gotta do some work…

have a good one, mandingueira, and it is gooood that you are ONLINE again!

First of all…major props from me for applying the theory of evolution to capoeira! That was awesome. XD It was also a really interesting point that I’ve never heard before, at least not put in that way. I still think it could go both ways, though.

It could go how you said, with an egocentric or “indoctrinated” group being, because of this ideological control, stronger and more cohesive as a whole, whereas with a more philosophically relaxed group, people will take a more relaxed attitude as to committment, loyalties, etc., so the group membership might on the whole be more fluctuating and dispersed.

On the other hand, when you have a group run like that, with such a strong and inflexible hand ideologically…that just doesn’t seem sustainable. Like a dystopia, it appears to be an extremely tight ship, but cracks are bound to appear eventually. Fewer new people might take as easily to the philosophy being imposed on them as the “one and only”, and existing members of the group might start questioning. In a group that’s more flexible to begin with, members have room to explore, so if they stay, they have no doubt and know it’s because they want to be part of that group and philosophy. Whereas with the “egocentric” group, it might retain more members at first, but the “quality” of the membership (not their prowess in capoeira, but how much they value the group and being a member of that group) might not be as strong because they might also have more doubts and unanswered questions, and in the end something would have to give.

I see what you mean about differences leading to competition, but the only part that worries me is how you phrased it! As in, I would’ve said, “differences lead to competition and competition leads to self-improvement, to showing ‘my group is the best’”—not necessarily just that the other group is worse, lol. Even though I don’t think you meant it that way, my worry is that that’s precisely what some other capoeiristas are out to do, “prove” their own superiority just by trying to humiliate other groups, not actually just trying to improve themselves for the sake of improvement and progress.

Thanks, Angoleiro–overall I thought you made really good and interesting points!

Thanks I’m so happy to be writing it again!

Oh wow, so you are between groups right now? I think that takes strength actually, if you still love capoeira…even if you don’t completely agree with the philosophy, I don’t know what I’d do without the environment, the rodas, the background melee of tuning berimbaus and atabaques…not to mention no teachers yelling at me till I’ve finished my sequences of kicks! Although of course what you said is right too, that it would be hard to stay committed if you don’t feel like you truly believe in or agree with it all.

But wow, how is it, training with an angola group after leaving a regional one?

I loved what you said about philosophy there…that it’s thought blended with experience…somehow that seems like common sense, but it still sounds really good and apt when you put it like that!

And I completely agree about what you said, that the same divisions or narrow-mindedness in capoeira is of the *exact* same sort as in religion and class…although…actually, I think religion and class are one sort, and the type in capoeira and politics are another sort. At least in capoeira and politics there can be logic and more or less reasonable explanations behind people’s beliefs (not necessarily that a style is better, but that the styles are different and the teacher just prefers one, as long as they acknowledge it’s because of preference and not “Truth”). But in religion and class, or ethnicity, the reasons for such division or exclusion are ultimately traced back to…none. None that are based on logic or reason, at any rate. (Since they don’t acknowledge it’s opinion, and do say it’s “Truth”.)

Thanks for your words Hera, as always =)