PDA

View Full Version : So just what IS a warrior??



Ken-Hawaii
20th November 2005, 08:04
Driving home from the dojo this evening, I paid my wife what I thought was a compliment: I told her that I was very happy that she had become a warrior. That's when the proverbial excrement hit the spinning blades!

As a bit of background, I convinced her to take a look at kendo about four years ago, & she now holds nidan in kendo, as well as shodan in MJER iaido. I've been involved in martial arts for 54 years myself, as well as ducking flack & more than a few other flying hazards in Vietnam, & so considered myself as competent to decide that she had truly become a warrior. Open mouth, insert foot, was more like it.

Anyway, my wife of 27 years promptly informed me that she had been a warrior since long before we met, & that she had always been ready, willing, & able to defend herself & her personal space. No argument from me on that, but I stated that a warrior is a lot more than a person who can defend her/himself. We quickly bogged down in the semantics, leaving her thoroughly upset, & me wondering where my compliment had gone astray :confused:.

I've searched E-Budo, but have failed to find another thread that addresses just why we are called what we are, be that warrior, budoka, bushi, or whatever. The more I try to define it, the more I find myself addressing the tools or techniques, rather than the essence of what a warrior really is. The term may be subjective, but there has to be a better description than what I stepped in....

Anyone out there who'd like to try?

Gakkousei
20th November 2005, 12:16
I have a hard time calling anyone a warrior whose major occupation is not war, but that's just me.

Brian Owens
20th November 2005, 13:55
The term is used in so many ways by so many people that's it can't be pinned down to one simple answer. I, myself, think it's over-used, and I would like to see more people go with Gakkousei's definition.

Going with that, I'd add that not every soldier is a warrior, even very good soldiers.

William Wallace, Takeda Shingen, Tasunka Witko (Crazy Horse) -- they were warriors.

Patton would, I think, fit my image of a warrior. Eisenhower would not; he was a "professional soldier" -- which is not neccesarily the same thing.

Food for thought, anyway.

Brian Owens
20th November 2005, 14:05
...Anyway, my wife of 27 years promptly informed me that she had been a warrior since long before we met...but I stated that a warrior is a lot more than a person who can defend her/himself....leaving her thoroughly upset, & me wondering where my compliment had gone astray...
That one's easy; your compliment went astray the moment you "corrected" her or said anything other than:

"I never thought it about it that way before, but you're absolutely right, honey. ( Or words to that effect.) ;)

IchiRiKen1
20th November 2005, 14:16
Being a soldier, I'd offer that the bulk of military forces aren't even aware there is a distinction between soldier and warrior. Here in the 2nd Infantry Division (Korea), the term "warrior" is applied, very literally, to everything... The Indian Warrior is an icon for the division, and that is the reason why we "warrior-ize" everything, but leadership here takes the whole "warriorship" thing very seriously (so it seems).

We even have a "Warrior Hardware" shop... :rolleyes: No joke...

I'm inclined to say that the definition of warrior has evolved, and though perhaps once I wouldn't have agreed, I think that "warrior" needs to be applied not only to those who prosecute wars but also to those who live "warrior" lives.

I'd recommend Forrest E. Morgan's book "Living the Martial Way," and maybe even (for entertainment's sake) Carlos Casteneda's first 3 books, along with Dan Millman's "Way of the Peaceful Warrior."

Warriorship in an age where the slightest physical altercation can land your butt in prison may well have reached a point where it is defined not by how well you fight, but how well you don't...

Just a thought. I'm probably wrong. Just ask my wife. :)

Finny
20th November 2005, 14:21
That one's easy; your compliment went astray the moment you "corrected" her or said anything other than:

"I never thought it about it that way before, but you're absolutely right, honey.

Quoted for truth.

Dan Harden
20th November 2005, 14:37
*Minor rant on a humorous thread*

As with most everything in this new age of communication-you can't define things. Everything and everyone has to be inclusive. This is the age of the great "equalizer."
Thus the pregnant mom is as brave and noteworthy a "warrior" as the Medal of honor winner.
The idea of everything and everyone being "equal" denies human nature. There is competition and/or there are stellar efforts -worthy of note above others- in every field. We are not all equal, some people are lackluster, some are lazy and laggards, some are criminals and people of ill repute and ill intent, and many others are do gooders with poor results, some are do-gooders who in fact, do-good with great resolve and fabulous results. Some are along for the ride in more ways than one, others lead poorly while still others lead with success.
*As a side note*
I don't think your wife "became" a warrior when she got her Nidan in kendo anymore then the tens of thousands of blokes before her becoming warriors either. As a personal view she wasn't, isn't and probably never will be one either. I reserve that term for a specific use as I see fit-apparently just as she does. Which in the age of the "great P.C. equalizer" makes her opinions and views as worthless or as meaningfull as my own.
Defending your space in Suburbia as a Mom or being a cancer survivor or being a volunteer and a dad as a definition for "being" a warrior sounds great at the barbacue. But only as long as you're not claming it in the face of a -two war- vet with missing limbs who lost them in the face of insurmountable odds. Then it would sound as hollow and laughable as it is -nothing more than an effort to reduce the amazing accomplishments of others to make ourselves feel good.

Most people are not self-aware and honest with their lot in life. I have often said "One of Gods greatest gifts is to simply know yourself and be ...content."
Contentment is magic.

"Lets give everyone a medal of honor, Silver cross, meritorious service award, and first place ribbons and be done with it...." It won't change a thing. People will still be lazy or hardworking, cowards or brave, do-gooders or utterly self-involved miscrients, followers or leaders..with medals and ribbons
Cheers
Dan

Gakkousei
20th November 2005, 17:06
I think that any well-trained soldier can match a warrior in ability, and even surpass him, but to me, what makes the distinction of being a warrior, is the weathering of extraordinary circumstances while keep those around you safe. It's taking-on a leadership role when the others back down, and tunneling straight through incapacitating fear in order to do what is right. It's the willingness to die for what is right.
Hericletus put it best:

"Of every 100 men, 10 shouldn't even be there, 80 are nothing but targets, and 9 are real fighters...we are lucky to have them...they make the battle...but one, Ah, one of them is a warrior, and he will bring the others back."

Simon Ford-Powell
20th November 2005, 19:58
The last two posts are real - Gakkousei and Dan. i am a martial artist with 27 years, a number of black belts and the highest grade of 6th Dan. I am NOT a warrior, i am a part time martial artist - end of.

Joseph Svinth
20th November 2005, 20:14
Warriors were certainly popularized by the drug-induced fantasies of Carlos Castaneda. The US Army has also latched onto the concept, doubtless because the alternative is admitting that S-3 is a euphemism for bureaucrats in starched camouflage uniforms whose whole mission in life involves attending interminable meetings and creating the PowerPoint slide shows played therein. However, for my money, Ralph Peters did a much better job of defining real warriors. See, for example, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/peters1.htm :

QUOTE

In the past I stressed the importance of recognizing five types of warriors: the scum of the earth, the average Joe who is drawn into the conflict as it drags on, demobilized military men, opportunists, and true believers. Now I worry about only two of these sources of conflict: the opportunists and the believers, the gangsters and the godly, the men unrestrained by morals and those whose iron morality is implacable. They are the centers of gravity. The others are swept along by the tide.

END QUOTE

and http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1994/peters.htm :

QUOTE

"Warriors" are "erratic primitives of shifting allegiance, habituated to violence, with no stake in civil order. Unlike soldiers, warriors do not play by our rules, do not respect treaties, and do not obey orders they do not like.... The archetype of the new warrior class is a male who has no stake in peace, a loser with little education, no legal earning power, no abiding attractiveness to women,[3] and no future. With gun in hand and the spittle of nationalist ideology dripping from his mouth, today's warrior murders those who once slighted him, seizes the women who avoided him, and plunders that which he would never otherwise have possessed...

Initially, the totemic effect of a uniform, however shabby and incomplete,[4] and the half-understood rhetoric of a cause lend him a notion of personal dignity he never sensed before, but his dedication to the cause is rarely as enduring as his taste for spoils. He will, however, cling to his empowering military garb. For the new warrior class, many of whose members possess no skills marketable in peace, the end of fighting means the end of the good times."

END QUOTE

Peters has an equally insightful view of US foreign policy, too. See http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/peters1.htm :

QUOTE

We are made in the image of Pilate the Roman. On his fateful day, he was annoyed, briefly, by a seemingly minor case he just wanted to put behind him. He did not understand the matter and did not even believe it lay within his purview. He was baffled and annoyed by the local squabbles, failing to appreciate the social and religious complexities involved--and the greater implications. Jesus was beneath the consideration of Rome's threat analysts. Pilate simply wanted the problem to go away. Capable of insight, cruelty, and greatness on other occasions, on the most important day of his life the Roman was caught drowsing. He was the classic representative of empire, the patron saint of diplomats.

We can almost smell the heat of the day and taste the dust. Imagine Pilate's impatience with his translator and his disbelief that the shabby, battered figure before him could be the cause of such a fuss. There simply was not enough of a challenge in evidence to excite a Roman governor and gentleman of great affairs. When a perfunctory attempt at arbitration between the locals failed, Pilate washed his hands of the prisoner's fate, anxious to move on to serious business, or maybe just to lunch.

END QUOTE

Joe (former bureaucrat in green, who is currently employed as a cleaner-upper of other people's messes)

gmanry
20th November 2005, 23:47
As we are a forum for Japanese warrior traditions, it is important to look at the source of our traditions, which were the family systems of the samurai.

Samurai can be translated as "one who serves." For the samurai, serving ones lord, family, and comrades in arms was the correct path. Obviously in today's modern world that may not work so well, as we don't have Lords per say. In today's modern society we have a broader responsibility to the fabric of that society. Ideally in democratic societies there is not station to determine who gets served and who doesn't (note I said ideally).

Robert Humphries coined the Warriors Creed:

“Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there. Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend. Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there.”

I think this sums it up well and harkens back to the original meaning of samurai, one who serves. We can't be the samurai of Japan, and I think anyone even slightly familiar with that history would agree that one should not really try to. Such a lifestyle is neither desirable nor practical. However, the ideal of the samurai, taken in more general terms, is not such a bad guide to use.

This creed is hardly unique, but it is a nice summation and when one ponders it through many possible lines of outcomes, it holds up to scrutiny in terms of a guiding principle.

Shin Buke
21st November 2005, 05:01
A word carries no more or less meaning than we assign it. You can ask any number of people what they think a warrior is and no two people will give you the same answer. In fact, this is probably one of the biggest communication problems people face, the same word meaning different things to different people, undoubetly why you and your wife got into the... erm... debate that you did. ^_~

For my part, the meaning I assign to warrior is a person possessing three qualities: 1) a proficiency in the art of war, 2) a moral center that directs their actions, 3) a spirit of self-sacrifice and compassion.

Of course, if you ask Webster he'll say:


Main Entry: war·rior
Pronunciation: 'wor-y&r, 'wor-E-&r, 'wär-E- also 'wär-y&r
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werriour, from Old North French werreieur, from werreier to make war, from werre war -- more at WAR
: a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict <poverty warriors>

Where warfare is defined as:


Main Entry: war·fare
Pronunciation: 'wor-"far, -"fer
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from werre, warre war + fare journey, passage -- more at FARE
1 : military operations between enemies : HOSTILITIES, WAR; also : an activity undertaken by a political unit (as a nation) to weaken or destroy another <economic warfare>
2 : struggle between competing entities : CONFLICT

So, in the strictest sense, a warrior is one who is or has been involved in military operations against an opposing force. More broadly, it is anyone that is involved in some sort of conflict.

...I like my defintion better. ^_~

Ken-Hawaii
21st November 2005, 06:28
Although I've seen a few good responses, I just can't convince myself that a warrior has to be directly involved with a war. There are just too many other situations where any of us might need to respond in warrior mode.

Glenn's quote on the Warrior's Creed comes closest to what I envision as a "true warrior," & Eric's quote of Hericletus is much the same. I first got a chuckle out of Dan's comments, but then sat back & thought a bit more (easy to do today on our boat floating on Kaneohe Bay with a cold beer in hand). Linda didn't just "become" a warrior because she had reached nidan; she'd managed to do that long before when she helped to break up an armed robbery, at least in my eyes. But my compliment to her was based more on the fact that for nearly the first quarter-century of our marriage, she hadn't even thought about a martial art, & then she suddenly found herself not only interested, but also judged as competent in two arts by picky senseis.

Musing on all this has led me to a conclusion that a warrior is someone who has the ability/capability/competence to analyze a situation, & then have the gonads to act responsibly to resolve it. Most people simply freeze when confronted with an emergency, & are even more likely to do so when it's their own emergency. A warrior at least has a better chance of surviving a life-threatening situation. I can't imagine being "swept along by the tide" myself, & probably a lot of you feel the same way. Training of course helps, as it gives you basic reflexes to deal with certain crises, but if you don't have the innate warrior instinct (?), you are unlikely to emerge intact.

Shin Buke
21st November 2005, 07:24
I think that your use of the term "warrior mode" just points out that "warriorship" is a state of existence that is set apart from the norm. Reading your post has lreminded me of a fourth quality that a warrior possesses that goes hand-in-hand with warfare and that is being in a state of constant readiness for conflict.

I would think that a warrior is someone who is always in "warrior mode." That's what makes them a... warrior! I don't doubt that people can go into warrior mode when necessary, but what sets a warrior apart is that he constantly keeps himself at the ready, mentally, physically, emotionally... a state that, I think, is difficult to understand and even more difficult to achieve if you are or have not been in a profession or lived in a state where the constant threat of mortal conflict is present.

Of course, I do not claim such an understanding myself.

Neil Hawkins
21st November 2005, 09:15
This was discussed at length on the old E-Budo, and unfortunately I never saved any of it. There was some very good discussion.

It was also thrashed out very well on the Knife Forums board much of which I did save, so I will trawl through that tonight and see what was there.

But the bottom line was that most people believed that the term 'Warrior' is literally, figuratively and etymologically linked with war and the two are not able to be separated.

That doesn't mean you have to be experienced in war, but you have to be prepared to go to war at any time. But even then it isn't distinct because not all soldiers are warriors, and what about those of us that are older or carry injuries that preclude us from going to war? Did I used to be a warrior, but am no longer?

But again, what is war? Does that mean going off at the whim of the Government to some far off country for reasons you don't understand or believe in? Does it mean fighting for your life in any arena? There are people who are called warriors that never actually fought in combat.

I tend to think that there has to be a degree of principles before safety, that you should be prepared to lay down your life for your cause to be considered a warrior. But then, who's to say which causes are worthy?

In the end you can go around like 'one hand clapping' but everyone will have their own interpretation, and those that have been in combat will always see it differently from those who would if they could, but never got the chance.

My conclusion, years ago from all the discussions, was that you should never call yourself a warrior, but you should be proud if someone else calls you one.

Regards

Neil

gmanry
21st November 2005, 09:28
The Art of War would hold that the best warrior is one who has managed the conflict before it apparently manifests itself. I think this is really crucial for a person to be a competent warrior or budoka (the term that perhaps Ken should have used with his wife, as it seems he was complimenting her on her accomplishments in budo). Don't worry Ken, foot in mouth is a common ailment between me and my wife too, particularly when it comes to budo. ;)

To be sure labels and names are, of course, arbitrary beyond the confines of any one discussion.

As an observation, I offer that Ghandi (and many with him) was a fantastic warrior. He had almost no tactical martial knowledge. He was a brilliant strategist though. Had he been a slightly better tactician, then he would have lived to the end of a natural life span. He defeated an empire, without any conventional weapons, and he did it out of compassion for his people.

Martin Luther King (and the innumerable nameless by his side), Mother Teresa, and many others can stand alongside the most conventionally notable warriors as far as I am concerned. They possessed courage, compassion, and action that far exceeds anything I have realized in my life yet.

Of course there are those even today who would see each of these people as villains, malcontents, and ner-do-wells. Personally, I pity such people, but I do get over it. ;)

gmanry
21st November 2005, 09:30
Perhaps it is best to heed the prime statement in the Tao Te Ching:
"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao."

Of course, that would make this place pretty dull.

Andrew S
21st November 2005, 11:30
There was a British Army Regimenatal Sergeant Major, and American Army Sergeant Major and an Australian RSM. They were having a heated discussion on whose soldiers were the bravest.
"The Americans, for sure", says the American. "You, there soldier! Over here!", he bellows to a private. "Climb that tower and jump off it!"
"Sir!", replies the private, who promptly climbs the 3 storey tower and jumps off, breaking his legs in the process.
"The British are braver", says the British RSM. "You, private! Get over here! Climb that tower and swan dive off it!!"
"Sir!" says the poor private, as he climbs the tower, swan dives off it and breaks his arms.
"Hah!" says the Australian RSM. "You, private, get over here now!"
"Sir?"
"Climb that tower, swan dive off it and pull your arms back just before you land!"
"**** off, sir!!", says the private.
"See," says the Australian RSM "That's the bravest soldier."


Too many people play at being warriors - it's like one of those medieaval costume parties - everyone is a king or knight or maybe a court jester, but no-one wants to be a peasant.

Adam McCarthy
21st November 2005, 12:56
Too many people play at being warriors - it's like one of those medieaval costume parties - everyone is a king or knight or maybe a court jester, but no-one wants to be a peasant.

A few decades from now you will probably be suprised to see how many people quote you for that statement alone.

Gakkousei
22nd November 2005, 00:06
All semantics aside, i cannot bring myself to consider a desk jocky a warrior. Studying martial arts does not make you a warrior, otherwise my 8 year old cousin could be called a warrior. I think that more than anything, being a warrior in this day in age means a total willingness to answer the call-to-arms when your home and family, or community is threatened, and doing so in an independant manner, instead of doing it as part of a job, i.e. soldiering.

SamHaLe
22nd November 2005, 11:31
There's a difference between being a martial artist and being a warrior. A martial artist is exactly what it says—a person who studies the arts of war. But a warrior is the person himself. He doesn't have to have a black belt to be a great warrior; he has the attitude of a warrior, the spirit of a warrior. And he doesn't have to be a great athlete either because he has the heart of a warrior, and the soul of a warrior, so that when the time comes, when he faces danger, he turns to steel and does what he has to do without fear. If you're a martial artist twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, then that's all you project and that's all you are. But if you're a warrior—if you're a father when your child comes up, a husband when your wife comes up, a friend when your buddy comes up—then you adapt yourself to all of those different roles and yet none of those roles are you. That's the kind of mind that when the battle starts, you're ready. Because you're not holding on to anything, you have everything at your disposal. That's how it works.

Dan Harden
22nd November 2005, 11:33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew S
Too many people play at being warriors - it's like one of those medieaval costume parties - everyone is a king or knight or maybe a court jester, but no-one wants to be a peasant.


A few decades from now you will probably be suprised to see how many people quote you for that statement alone.

********************************************
Actually you will find that is a fairly common assessment of wanna-be rein actors. I save it for the wannabe samurai who appear at my dojo door. I always say "So, ya love that age and imagine all that knightly glamour?" When they say "Yeah!" I say "OK let’s imagine.Lets go back to that age.
I am a knight.
You?
You’re a peasant who cleans my floors!"

Or
"If you want to be a samurai- Great! Your job is being a tax collecting samurai whom everyone hates and wants to kill, and oh, by the way, leave your young wife and your son here to live with me. And while I'm paying you $200,00 a year- ya need to spend $160,000 equipping men and the rest goes to paying me too take care of your family. Go ......and have a nice day!

I think the greatest advice is to live in the here and now, be the best you can manage. Let real hero’s be hero’s, let real warriors be the warriors they were at that time and have earned [i]our[i] respect. And everyone else?
Just get over yourselves!

See ya
Dan

Dan Harden
22nd November 2005, 11:55
I first got a chuckle out of Dan's comments, but then sat back & thought a bit more (easy to do today on our boat floating on Kaneohe Bay with a cold beer in hand). Linda didn't just "become" a warrior because she had reached nidan; she'd managed to do that long before when she helped to break up an armed robbery, at least in my eyes. But my compliment to her was based more on the fact that for nearly the first quarter-century of our marriage, she hadn't even thought about a martial art, & then she suddenly found herself not only interested, but also judged as competent in two arts by picky senseis.

Hi Ken
Hope ya don't mind me calling you Ken. I stand by my original points. Kudos to your wife though. I have had my own life in my hands more than once and the life of a young women in my hands as well. I won the day each time, but I don't consider myself a warrior for a single day.
Me? I got over myself along time ago. I learned to recognize greatness in others and appreciate it.There are much greater people then us. And they deserve to be placed above us. Particularly those who give of themselves for us.
The Mother Theresas and Ghandis and one of my favorites -Martin Luther King- of the world are, depending on your spiritual views, warriors of the spirit.
At the end of the day a soldier concentrates on the practical. We each need to learn how to tie and tuckaway our own laces and be "good to go" for our own selves in our real lives. And that, with our feet firmly planted on the ground, not with our heads in the clouds

Cheers
Dan

John Lindsey
22nd November 2005, 16:52
I am not sure how I would define what a warrior is, but I have seen plenty over here. But, I have seen others who due to their jobs, never venture out into harm's way, except for a rocket or mortar attack on their base. I respect them all.

I don't think that just being in a war zone means one is a warrior. Until you have "seen the elephant" as we say, you may have a lingering doubt about how you will handle it. The majority of the people handle it well though.

So, what do you all consider a Hero? I hear this term used a lot back in the States to describe people who are over here. Last year, a State Department officer was killed by a mortar while he was in his bathroom. I remember hearing on the radio how he was being praised as a hero. I could not see anything heroic about dying naked with a bar of soap, but if it makes his family feel better, then I say go for it.

Maybe all this hero talk is due to the "support the troops" movement, and how badly we treated our Vietnam vets. I would rather have people calling our soldiers heros instead of murders...

Defining what a coward is, is easier than what a warrior/hero is...

BTW, I am not a warrior, hero, or a coward :).

Charlie Kondek
22nd November 2005, 16:53
Semantics is, of course, what we're debating, and it's simply a fact of life, particularly post-modern life, that meaning is multi-layered, varied and contradictory. You say it's X, I say it's Y, she says it's Z, in this regard there is no right or wrong but a plurality of opinion.

I liked your observation and your wife's answer and your respect for your wife's answer, Ken. Just to add another wrinkle to this discussion, I long ago stopped considering myself someone who wanted to be a warrior and considered myself a sportsman. Think about that for a minute. Sportsman. Weekend warrior. Good sport. One who plays at something. In the minds of many a sportsman is not much. But if you actually revere the sport and the concept behind the sport, if you respect what it means to be "game," it's quite a bit.

Anyway that's just how I look at it.

Charlie Kondek
22nd November 2005, 16:58
What's a hero, now that's a good one. I'll have to think about it. I have a lot of heroes, from the famous to the completely unknown, to people I admire from afar to the person next to me.

Carlos Estrella
22nd November 2005, 19:18
As a former US Marine and former LEO in a pretty nasty tribal jurisdiction, I've seen my share of combat. A friend and jujutsu instructor of mine was on the ground in Somalia during the incident described in "Blackhawk Down." What separates us, other than timing? Simple... while I have seen the enemy and survived, he has seen the enemy and thrived. THAT is my definition of a "warrior." To me, a warrior is someone who may not be the best "soldier," but rather someone who is ready, willing, able and MOTIVATED toward warlike combat (as opposed to what a civilian or even a police officer might face).

You can be an effective combatant and a great soldier, etc. The DESIRE to take it further in the professional trade of arms may make the difference - I just don't know. All I know is that when Apollo Creed told Rocky Balboa in the movie that "without the war then the warrior might as well be dead," was probably the best description for a warrior I'd ever heard. (Forgive the Rocky quote - it actually fits, IMHO, in this case.)

Ken, your wife may have had a reason to get mad, but not this reason (in my opinion). Unless she seeks or at least "relishes the moment" of life or death combat, I'd classify her as a fighter, a martial artist, etc. but not necessarilly a warrior. I also agree with someone else's comment about actually being IN a war to be a warrior, or to have fought in a war, etc.

FWIW,

Carlos

Chris Thompson
22nd November 2005, 23:46
Let's say you're out walking with a friend, and you both see a beautiful or awe-inspiring sight. You're speechless, but your friend somehow says exactly the right thing- a phrase that captures the moment perfectly. You might think "that man is a poet," but if he does not in fact compose poetry, then he really isn't. English is like that. We can use words metaphorically. The metaphorical use of the word "warrior" has gotten more than a little out of hand lately, but that doesn't mean it's just a lie. It's a different type of meaning.

Charlie Kondek
23rd November 2005, 13:48
Hey, good point, Chris.

Hero: to me, a hero is someone who faces adversity, especially when their motives are good. Pure and simple. That would mean, to me, cops doing their jobs are heros, parents sacrificing for their kids are heros, a popular high schooler who risks criticism by befriending an unpopular fellow student is a hero. If that's too broad a definition, I don't care, those people are heroes to me.

Gakkousei
24th November 2005, 10:22
As a former US Marine and former LEO in a pretty nasty tribal jurisdiction, I've seen my share of combat. A friend and jujutsu instructor of mine was on the ground in Somalia during the incident described in "Blackhawk Down." What separates us, other than timing? Simple... while I have seen the enemy and survived, he has seen the enemy and thrived. THAT is my definition of a "warrior." To me, a warrior is someone who may not be the best "soldier," but rather someone who is ready, willing, able and MOTIVATED toward warlike combat (as opposed to what a civilian or even a police officer might face).

You can be an effective combatant and a great soldier, etc. The DESIRE to take it further in the professional trade of arms may make the difference - I just don't know. All I know is that when Apollo Creed told Rocky Balboa in the movie that "without the war then the warrior might as well be dead," was probably the best description for a warrior I'd ever heard. (Forgive the Rocky quote - it actually fits, IMHO, in this case.)

Ken, your wife may have had a reason to get mad, but not this reason (in my opinion). Unless she seeks or at least "relishes the moment" of life or death combat, I'd classify her as a fighter, a martial artist, etc. but not necessarilly a warrior. I also agree with someone else's comment about actually being IN a war to be a warrior, or to have fought in a war, etc.

FWIW,

Carlos


Tribal Jurisdiction..i know EXACTLY what you mean...i work on a reservation, and half of it's members are on Meth and crazy as loons or otherwise corrupt.

samuraibill
28th November 2005, 20:25
Me.......lol

Andrew S
28th November 2005, 20:44
My pet-hate term is "samurai", the way it's bandied about by the popular media over here in jingoistic references to sports stars.
Baseball players as samurai? No, they're ****ing peasants!.
The webmaster for my Aikido group's site used the term about me in their "member of the month" collumn, but I'll forgive them for that - talking about one's martial attitude in a martial art instead of nationality in a useless sporting event.

Carlos Estrella
28th November 2005, 22:03
Tribal Jurisdiction..i know EXACTLY what you mean...i work on a reservation, and half of it's members are on Meth and crazy as loons or otherwise corrupt.

The part that sucked was that when you ARE Native working w/ a tribe, the members don't trust you without ALOT of time and work and others think you're just as "drunk, stoned and corrupt" as the ones you're protecting.

FWIW: I was basically a glorified pow wow security guard, except many of the LE's I worked around knew me from USMC and other stuff (LE training, etc.) so in their eyes I was "legit," which helped on occasion.

Regards,

Carlos

Inazuma
28th November 2005, 22:16
I've seen 19 year old kids as warriors, side by side with 40 year olds... my dad fought in about 3 wars and most of his friends died for things they believed in...
warriors don't have anything to do with morals, or virtues or anything. a person who thrives on war (and i've seen my share), i don't want them as friends of mine, although we all serve a purpose in life i guess.
a warrior does just that, he wars, he fights, whether of his of volition, his choice, of someone elses (as in mandatory army service), people who deal death to other people. putting any other colors on the subject is to lose track of this fact, and most people, in my opinion, have a too rosy of a picture when it comes to warriors and samurai or whatever.
I'm not trying to belittle anyone's achievements at becoming a Warrior or anything, i'm beginning my path in martial arts at the moment as well...
there's no such thing really as an absolute good, and absolute bad, its all really a matter of perspective, although most people do need to believe that the enemy they are fighting is evil, and that they are the good guys (the enemy by the way, thinks exectly the same).
so thats my two cents, and you know, i could be wrong about it :)

Ken-Hawaii
29th November 2005, 07:57
Yeah, Amir, I understand what you're saying about our fathers being (war-type) warriors. My dad was a WWII B-17 navigator/bombardier, & spent over two years as a German POW. Surviving that, along with the bombing he did, you'd expect him to be anything except the soft-spoken person he's always been, at least around me. But no one would argue whether he was a warrior.

I'm about 54 years farther down the martial arts path than when I started, teach master's classes in judo & fencing, flew fighters in Vietnam, swing a mean iaito & shinken, & am still wondering what a warrior is in today's world.... I've gotten some great responses in this thread, but am still looking for that definitive answer.

But maybe looking for that answer is part of the quest.

K. Cantwell
29th November 2005, 13:08
For what it is worth, there was a show on Discovery just this past weekend entitled "Warrior: From Civilian to Soldier." (I think that was the full name.)

It really focused on the training necessary to form the warrior mindset. It started me thinking that a warrior is someone that is fundamentally (& irrevocably) changed by training and experience from the cultural standard. A warrior's job is to take another human being's life in defense of country, family, or self. This builds a wall between the warrior and the very society they are trained to protect.

A true warrior will probably never feel comfortable in civilian society again. They have just been asked (or forced) to do some things that separate them from "normal" 9-5 civilians with no similar experiences. Their feelings and perceptions have been altered, and I would imagine it's quite difficult to pick up life where it left off before the training began.

Warriors may seem to readjust, but I would bet that there is always something that keeps them just a bit outside the cultural norms in terms of perception and belief.

All of this is pure speculation on my part, mind you. I am in no shape, way, or form a warrior. I have enough problems keeping my freshman Spanish class on task.

Kevin Cantwell

Gakkousei
3rd December 2005, 13:19
The part that sucked was that when you ARE Native working w/ a tribe, the members don't trust you without ALOT of time and work and others think you're just as "drunk, stoned and corrupt" as the ones you're protecting.

FWIW: I was basically a glorified pow wow security guard, except many of the LE's I worked around knew me from USMC and other stuff (LE training, etc.) so in their eyes I was "legit," which helped on occasion.

Regards,

Carlos

Seen that before. Friend of mine was Tribal PD at another reservation, and got fired for arresting the wrong person. I'm part Native, and they know that, but im still looked at as "whitey" by a lot of those guys. And from what i've observed, the Tribal cops exist mainly to protect the interests and assets of the tribe from the outsiders, such as Casino customers and such. Although fortunately on the reservation i work at, the TPD DOES have authority enough to bring the hammer down on a member or members if they are causing disruption, i.e. drugs, domestic disputes, disturbing the peace, etc. although i couldn't tell you to what extent they have this authority. I'm willing to bet, however, that arresting a member of the Tribal Council, justified or not, would probably result in a Tribal cop losing his/her job.

Ken-Hawaii
4th December 2005, 21:33
Well, I guess warriors aren't always friendly, even here in Hawaii. Some "samurai warrior" decided to liven things up out here, & it looks like he performed kesa-giri on some poor, unsuspecting guy outside a karaoke bar http://starbulletin.com/2005/12/02/news/story09.html.

I was one of several martial arts instructors who was contacted almost immediately by the local PD, & from the photo of the victim, it looks like the sword-wielder knew enough to do a deep slash with the sword. The victim probably would have bled to death just from that, but the attacker also used either a tanto or wakizashi to stab him in the neck until the guy was thoroughly defunct. Glad it wasn't anyone from our dojo! But this type of incident certainly won't do much to help iaido grow out here, either....

charlesl
4th December 2005, 23:59
But this type of incident certainly won't do much to help iaido grow out here, either....

Well, you know, people are kind of funny. I can see a certain type of person being motivated by to train because of something like this. The question is, do you really want them as students?

Damien Mason
5th December 2005, 01:33
I'm not a warrior, and I'm certainly not a hero. The only thing discussed so far that I'd be comfortable calling myself is a coward.

Ken-Hawaii
5th December 2005, 05:48
Maeda-Sensei is, thankfully, extremely careful about who he will allow to study iaido under him. With 28 students, only two of us have been allowed to study iaido without first having at least two years of kendo (& achieved shodan) under his watchful eye.

Sensei has also kicked out at least three students, two for lack of attendance, & the third for blatantly stating that he no longer trusted Sensei's judgement. That third person was also an iaido student, & I'm frankly happy that he's no longer around me with anything sharp! :rolleyes: If anyone wants to join our dojo to study iaido based on the sword attack, I would certainly hope that Sensei would figure that out real quick!

Strangely, of the 28 of us, I just realized that only one student is active military, & just two more of us have any military service. I find that to be interesting, as I know that in the judo & fencing classes that I teach, the majority of students have been or are in the military. What does that imply about (war-experienced) warriors wanting to study iaido & kendo?

And an open question to everyone else in a dojo, what percentage of your fellow students have military experience? :confused: This may be worth its own thread!

Scott Irey
6th December 2005, 05:47
Ken,

As to your original question, I am afraid there is no definative answer. I believe the definition to be quite broad and relevant to culture and era.

As to your most recent question. We currently have not military or former military personel in our dojo. A member who passed away a couple of years ago was a former B-17 nav/bombadier who flew in the 94th out of Italy. He later became a P-51 pilot, but the war ended before he saw action.

Regards,

johan smits
6th December 2005, 07:55
I am not hindered by any knowledge about war or being in the military but I seem to remember that I have read something about the difference between a soldier and a warrior. Can't remember where but the main difference was that a warrior acted independently because he wanted to participate in a battle or war for reasons of his own (he could be bound by his alliance to a king or so but he was not under someone's command who could order him to go and fight).
A soldier (from private to general) is someone who is not independent but is under someone's command and follows orders.
The piece was interesting and my message does not do it justice but that was the main difference given.

For what it's worth.

Best,

Johan Smits

Ting Chuan
18th December 2005, 17:44
Mr Goldstein,

My .02 is that a warrior is someone who tries and struggles, falls down or gets knocked down, gets up and tries again only to come up short and STILL they go on.

Basically they fight the good fight, whether physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritualy with no thought of reward or recognition; and when it's done they go on and think nothing more about it. They do the right thing even when noone is looking.

My mom was such a person with cancer, she fought it til the end and I think she knew she was losing, but she fought anyway.

And as to your other question; in the little group down here in Texas that I am part of- I am active duty military (enlisted) with 16 years in, theres another guy going through pilot training, and one more enlisted guy with I think four years in. We're located in the same town as Naval Air Station Corpus Christi so our percentage of military folks is higher.

Cheers!


Rob Acox

meat
21st December 2005, 02:56
I think the biggest problem with defining what exactly the word "warrior" means is our perception of things today. People tend to equate the word warrior with the activity of fighting instead of war. Hence anyone can now be called a warrior. Whether you are fighting depression, fighting a court case, fighting anything, people seem to go overboard and equate that with being some sort of warrior.
There is nothing wrong with admiring a person for overcoming hardship, but that's exactly what life is. Everyone has hardships, everyone has struggles. Some suffer more than others, but life is all about overcoming inner battles, hardships, and so on. To call someone a warrior for this just doesn't make sense to me.

Watching many UFC and Pride matches, I hear the word warrior bandied around alot. These men are extremely skilled, and very tough. They fight for a living. Most would think they are quite close to the money as far as being a warrior. Yet much of what I have seen in those competitions disgusts me. I've seen people speared head first into the ground, and worst of all the other night, I watched as Vanderlei Silva stood over a competitor in the guard and stomped his face. This was after another match in which he kicked his opponent, soccer style, in the neck as he was half knocked out. I believe those that behave in such a manner, despite skill, are nothing more than animals. Knowing when enough is enough, and having respect for the opponent/enemy and not just regarding them as something to kill is I think an extremely important aspect of a warrior.

What do I think is a warrior? I'm only 25, I'm not going to presume that I know the answer to such a deep question. But I do know what I believe a warrior is not. It is not someone who overcomes certain obstacles in life, it is not someone who is simply a great fighter. It is not necessarily someone who has been to war (as someone earlier pointed out). I think an earlier poster was close to my thoughts in that a warrior is the person who can go that extra step in battle, not someone who just survives, but someone who thrives.