PDA

View Full Version : How much Jutsu was really there?



Shikiyanaka
19th August 2005, 13:59
Sometimes I think the Okinawans weren't able or didn't wanted to avoid the "Jutsu-hype" in Ryûkyû martial arts. It seems to me the Jutsu-aspect may have been and simply is a question of "supply and demand".

The 20th century Okinawan Budôka are not at all expressive of the martial history always taken as the basis of it all. Whether it were the peasants or the gentry, or both: it is assumed that it was serious fighting at the base of the system. There are, however, no real pro-arguments, just conjectures, which usually take as their basis the logical operator "true" for the assumption "WHEN: the techniques are fighting techniques - THEN: there must have been real fighting."
In the inversion of the argument, this would mean, that the performing arts would have had no value in contributing to Karate / Kobudo. In fact, the performing arts of Bô-odori and other stage performances, which are truly traditional and which date back to Ryûkyû kingdom (before 1872) and which are found in historical sources, contain all of it, and I have seen vids of such performances as folk arts, where there is more fighting in a two minute perfomance than you may find in a Kobudô dôjô. The main difference is just the clothing, and that it clearly belongs to perfoming or "stage art". The technique is not what a modern exponent would call "This would work against a skilled martial artist", it is more a skilled, dancelike and - in martial terms - not always logical collection of solo and Yakusoku techniques, accompanied by a "crazy music".

So, isn't it that Kobudô Kata are already a (Japanized) Jutsu-approach, done by a few people in the 20th century, and that the "real basis" (which we think is truly martial) actually still exists in the folk and performing arts (as entertainment and amusement)? Is it, that we like the idea of something exotic, but didn't want to wear the strange clothes (just as I would like to do Capoeira, but wouldn't want to stand there singing Portuguese while banging some tambourine)? Is it, that we are able to understand Ryûkyû Kobudô in terms of Japanese Budô, grown within Okinawan history with its not very martial peculiarities? Is it a Jutsu-hype?

And most important, as a result of that: Am I "allowed" to view and train Ryûkyû Kobudô as something different than deadly martial arts technique?

I came up with this (I could have gone on and on, but I think this will give the point):


"As for the lack of weapons, it resulted directly from Satsuma's measures to render the king-dom harmless so as to prevent possible rebellions. Yet, as the coming years would show, etiquette, courtesy and patience were not the least efficient means of defense."

(Hall 1818, 210) "We saw no arms of any kind, and the natives always declared that they had none. Their behaviour on seeing a musket certainly implied an ignorance of fire-arms. In a cottage at the north end of the island, we saw a spear which had the appearance of a warlike weapon, but we had every reason to believe that this was used fort he sole purpose of catching fish, having seen others not very dissimilar actually employed in this way. They looked at our swords and cutlasses, and at the malay creeses and spears, with equal surprise, being apparently as little acquainted with the one as with the other. ... They denied having any knowledge of war either by experience or by tradition."

Cases such as the Taiwan incident, show, that - if there was need to act - the Okinawans would even ask the Japanese (!!!) for (political and if necessary military) help.

This said, comes up the reasoning of developing Karate Kobudô as self-defense, but against whom would one need self-defense in the "land of propriety" where

"[B]a tap with the fan, or an angry look, was the severest chastisement ever resorted to [Hall 1818, 210]
and

"In giving orders, the chiefs were mild though firm, and the people always obeyed with cheerfulness. There seemed to be great respect and confidence on the one hand, and much consideration and kind feeling on the other." (Note: sounds like a good dôjôkun. :) )[Ibid]
and

"… that the heaviest penalty attached to the commission of a crime was a gentle tap of a fan. [Beechey 1831, 191]

"Crime appears to be generally confined to petty lerceny and occasional public robbery" [Smith 1853, 74]

"There were no lethal weapons in Luchu, no feudal factions, few if any crimes of violence. Order was strictly preserved, and authority duly reverenced. Nomi-nally severe (being based on Chinese precedent), the penal laws were mild in practice." [Chamberlain 1895, I, 310]

"The most prominent race-characteristic of the Luchuans is not a physical, but a moral one. It is their gentleness of spirit and manner, their yielding and submissive disposition, their hospitallity and kindness, their aversion to violence and crime." [Chamberlain 1895, I, 318-19]

"Crimes are said to be very unfrequent among them, and they seem to be perfectly unarmed,... Not even a bow or arrow was to be seen" [M'leod 1817, 112-113]
In fact, bow and arrow are among the few weapons mentioned in Ryûkyû:

"The natives declared to the English, that they had no weapons, and we should be almost led to suppose these innocent, but story-telling islanders, could not comprehend the use of a weapon, nor had an occcasion fort the infliction of punishment. The Chinese narrator say, that Shun-tëen in 1490, laid the foundation of his kingdom by military force, and that till this day is, in a temple dedicated to him, AN ARROW placed before the tablet on which his name is inscribed, and which tradition says, is in conformity with his dying will, to show that his kingdom was founded by military prowess. [Amicus, 6-8]
But there is no bow and arrow in Ryûkyû Kobudô.

"Ihr friedliebender Charakter gibt sich schon dadurch zu erkennen, dass das Volk und seine Gebieter stets unbewaffnet sind und Waffen und deren Gebrauch fast gar nicht kennen. [Siebold 1832, 287]
In 1892, there was one murder and two murderous intent (according to ex-Chief Inspector of Police, Mr. Takeshita), all of which were done by women. On the murder Chamberlain wrote:

"The cause of the solitary murderess's crime was jealousy. Two women had quarreled about a man – the revers, perhaps, of what generally happens in Europe." [Chamberlain 1895, I, 460]

ZachZinn
19th August 2005, 16:44
While I don't know enough to answer the questions, I would like to say thanks for the thought provoking post. I've often wondered this same thing myself.

cxt
20th August 2005, 00:10
Shi

Couple of points.

1-The techniqies that would have a fair chance vs an oppt skilled in MA are vanishingly small.
"Techniques" fight no-one, it the person using them that makes them work or not work.

"Tank" Abbott is not my idea of skilled fighter (skilled from a standpoint of the precison of well crafted tecniques) guys pretty much your classic "brawler" whos strength and aggression would put down any but a fellow "pro"--and not a few of those as well.

(course he lost to tough guys more skilled from a technique standpoint--which just proves my point)

2-The okinawns seem to have a very real intention to have a peaceful nation--one in which if the stories are to be belived (always a question) that would exile people that "should know better" ie karate-ka for fighting and resisting arrest.

3- Most extent evidence is that karate (pick your term) was pretty much used by what we would call the police and civil authority.
At least in the 1800's.
It never seems to have been used as method of dueling warriors--at least not in the sense that comparative Japanese ryu did so.
Nor did it seem to have been used by massed armies of men.
It seems to have been used a method of "last ditch" self defense by the aformentioned groups.

So in that sense your correct.

4-The kobudo dances--many extent kata were never part of an "dance.
There are also kata/training that we know were passed down by guys that used it for fighting.
It also begs the question--if I take a series of fighting techniques and use them to build a "dance" around.
Does that somehow invalidte the effectiveness of the techniques?
And just because I am "dancing" in my part of town does that mean my danceing invalidtes what someone else is doing over on the other side of the island?

5-if your assumption is that to have effective fighting, you have to HAVE fighting---welll that opens up several lines of problems.

a-How far back does the fighting have to take place?
I mean that what if you yourself have not really fought-does that mean you can't? ever?

b-Where do you draw the line? Mostswar were fought with guns for the last of 100 years now--is NO-ONE able to fight?

c-What counts as "fighting"--matching with people in a heavily regulated enviroment wih set rules and ref to enforce them?
Or do peopel actually have to die?

d-A branch of the above, "most" of the training of a pro fighter is not "fighting" its spent in running, jumping rope, hiting the heavybag, sparring etc.



In short your "allowed" to train in your karate pretty much however you would like.

Your reasoning however seems to a bit erronous.


Chris Thomas

Shorin Ryuu
22nd August 2005, 22:23
The generally peaceful nature of Okinawans now and then probably supports the argument that martial arts were for fighting. I believe that the fighting tradition of Okinawa was largely not due to some war-like tendency or due to the excessive commonality in violence. Instead, it was usually meant to be employed quickly against what were usually unskilled opponents that disturbed the "order" of things: a very Confucian ideal. This makes sense as a lot of the more technical innovators of karate were bodyguards, police, etc.

As a side note, it is usually the case that many ceremonial dances, rituals, etc. of the nature of which you were describing tend to be derivatives of fighting traditions, styles, etc. and not the other way around.