Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73

Thread: Why study swordsmanship?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Abercynon, South Wales
    Posts
    238
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Yeah, there's a lot of stuff like incest paedophilia and rape in the Bible. It's wise to ignore that kind of thing if only for the sake of not giving other people reason to kill you

    But it occurs to me that that's a religious debate, and is a whole other issue, and probably not something to even be discussed on a martial arts forum.
    Dan Gould

    Not yet rated (Rather comfy in the gi now, just waiting to look good in it)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    453
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Agreed, this isn't supposed to be a biblical debate.

    The point was, that the Japanese were not so different in their waging of war than many other cultures, including the earlier days of our own culture.

    Therefore, demonizing them for what happened in Nanking is hypocritical.
    Douglas Wylie

    Do not learn philosophy from fortune cookie.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    1,590
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Wylie
    The point was, that the Japanese were not so different in their waging of war than many other cultures, including the earlier days of our own culture.

    Therefore, demonizing them for what happened in Nanking is hypocritical.
    One major difference is that international law is something that evolves. A couple of centuries ago, it was a major tenent of international law that you couldn't interfere with what a government did to its own citizens within its own borders, no matter what. Today, we think that it is perfectly all right to intervene to prevent a government from carrying out a genocide on its own people. Likewise, in the Bronze Age, the rape and slaughter of noncombatants was a regular and accepted part of warfare. You did it, and you expected the other guy to do it. However, over time, it became unacceptable to slaughter civilian populations. Did it still happen from time to time? Yes. Was it condemned when it happened? Usually.

    When people revolted against the Assyrian empire, or the Roman empire, the civilian noncombatants would be slaughtered en masse as a warning to others. But when the thirteen colonies revolted against the British empire, the Brits never considered setting Boston, New York, and Philadelphia to the torch as a way of quelling the rebellion. By the early 1900's, acts like the Rape of Nanking would be considered, I suspect, major violations of jus ad bello.
    David Sims

    "Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - Terry Pratchet

    My opinion is, in all likelihood, worth exactly what you are paying for it.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    453
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDATFUS
    the Brits never considered setting Boston, New York, and Philadelphia to the torch as a way of quelling the rebellion.
    But Sherman burned Atlanta.

    Then he marched to Savannah under these exact orders-

    In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility. Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120 part V, November 9, 1864
    Douglas Wylie

    Do not learn philosophy from fortune cookie.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    West Midlands, UK
    Posts
    2,054
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    We torched the White House too...
    Scott Halls
    Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu Kenjutsu - Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iai
    兵法二天一流剣術 - 無双直伝英信流居合

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    453
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Here is one for you-

    The US-led allied forces deliberately destroyed Iraq's water supply during the Gulf War - flagrantly breaking the Geneva Convention and causing thousands of civilian deaths.

    Since the war ended in 1991 the allied nations have made sure than any attempts to make contaminated water safe have been thwarted.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01.htm
    They aren't talking about that one in History class either.

    How bout the My Lai Massacre?
    Douglas Wylie

    Do not learn philosophy from fortune cookie.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    1,590
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Wylie
    But Sherman burned Atlanta.

    Then he marched to Savannah under these exact orders-
    Yes, he marched through Georgia. He caused a great deal of devestation to property, and there were some deaths along the way. But as a general rule, he did not slaughter civilians wholesale. Sherman tended to have people removed from their homes before setting the house on fire. There's a bit of a difference.

    Also, many people, both today and at the time, thought Sherman's actions were horrific. You'll note that I never said that all atrocities ended after the year 1500. I just said that such acts have come to be considered unacceptable over time, and are generally condemned in the modern world.

    How bout the My Lai Massacre?
    How 'bout it? It was harshly condemned, and there was a good bit of investigation. There was also a good bit of cover-up-- very messy situation. Once again, I'm not saying that atrocities are unknown in modern war-- I'm just saying that today we consider these things "atrocities" instead of "business as usual."

    Today, if a US Army unit were to go into an Iraqi village and kill several civilian men and rape several women, they would be likely to find themselves court-martialed. Five hundred years ago, no one would even consider it a problem.

    I'm not saying that the Japanese army was unique in committing atrocities. I do think, however, that the intense "martial" training that was pushed in Japanese high schools at the time helped create a group of soldiers much more likely to commit such atrocities, just like Nazi indoctrination created a large body of German soldiers perfectly willing to massacre Slavic villagers.

    If you don't want to think about Nanking, think about the treatment of American POW's by the Japanese. It was brutal, in total violation of all international norms for the treatment of prisoners (and in violation of treaties to which I think Japan was a signatory). Why did they do this? Because they had been indoctrinated to believe that these men were
    1) part of a weak and craven race
    2) cowardly and worthless for having surrendered and
    3) representatives of the powers that were trying to crush Japan.

    Is this the same as the spirit that comes from budo training? Not exactly. I think that the indoctrination that the Japanese gov't pushed was a perversion of budo, a warped version of what we try to study. I definitely don't argue that the spiritual training of budo automatically leads to Nanking. I just think that it is an area where we have to tread very carefully, an area very open to abuse.

    Anyway, getting back to the point-- I don't "demonize" the Japanese for Nanking, but I do condemn what happened there, without feeling at all hypocritical about it.
    David Sims

    "Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - Terry Pratchet

    My opinion is, in all likelihood, worth exactly what you are paying for it.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    453
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDATFUS
    I'm not saying that the Japanese army was unique in committing atrocities. I do think, however, that the intense "martial" training that was pushed in Japanese high schools at the time helped create a group of soldiers much more likely to commit such atrocities, just like Nazi indoctrination created a large body of German soldiers perfectly willing to massacre Slavic villagers.
    But not "just like". The Germans did not have budo/bushido/whatever you want to call it.

    Thinking like a scientist- You get 2 experiments with the same results (Germany and Japan committing atrocities), but only one received a certian stimulus (bushido), you can exclude the stimulus as a cause for the results.

    I think you hit the culprit- indoctrination. Now Japanese indoctrination may have included "bushido", but if "bushido" had not been available (as was the case with the Germans) they would have used something else to indoctrinate the soldiers with (divine right/racism/whatever).
    Douglas Wylie

    Do not learn philosophy from fortune cookie.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    320
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Therefore, demonizing them for what happened in Nanking is hypocritical.
    I'm not sure I understand how.

    If you are comparing warfare (meaning assimilated atrocities) from the Old Testament and comparing that warfare in a moral sense to warfare waged in the early 20th.C. I don’t think your assessment is valid.

    As David pointed out, views change over time and our view of warfare at the start of the 20thC. was certainly different from the one the world was laboring under in ancient times. (The Thirty-years War was a watershed in this regard for the West.)

    Also, the Japanese weren't laboring under any spell of ancient warfare or "Budo Spirit" at all. They were signatories to both Hague Conventions (1900 & 1912---decades before Nanking), ostensibly agreeing to a very strict and narrow view of warfare. They knew very well what was "legal" and what was not, as all the signatories did. That would seem to me to be the epitomy of hypocrisy. If "their" brand of warfare did not fit the Conventions, they shouldn't have signed. Bushido was cynically twisted to get the masses in line, but the elite decision makers certainly had no illusions about what the real deal was. Same with the Germans, British, and us. You think Churchill really believed that nonsense about the Germans not understanding the "Sea Affair"? It's all propaganda at a certain point.

    If you want to argue that several signing powers were guilty of violations (and hypocrisy) in some way, I'll grant you that. I don't, however, see any "demonization" of the Japanese going on. Just like it is not necessarily demonization of Harris or LeMay to criticize their choices regarding air power. Questions like was Nanking "more" immoral than Dresden can't really be answered objectively. We all have our opinions, but I don't think anyone is really saying the Japanese were worse. It's all nasty, inhumane stuff.

    Kevin Cantwell
    Last edited by K. Cantwell; 19th February 2007 at 22:06.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    453
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    In fact, I would blame dehumanizing the enemy to be the cause of all atrocities.

    The budo I practice respects the enemy as a worthy opponent.

    I can think of one instance in particular- MJER Okutachiwaza Sodesurigaeshi- where you specifically do the waza in such a manner to avoid hurting the innocent bystanders.
    Douglas Wylie

    Do not learn philosophy from fortune cookie.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    453
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K. Cantwell
    We all have our opinions, but I don't think anyone is really saying the Japanese were worse. It's all nasty, inhumane stuff.
    I generally agree with you.

    I think people take one instance, and look at it removed from the context of all other similar instances, and go on about how evil it is.

    My point is to bring to light that ALL warfare contains some element of this kind of behavior, and vindicate "bushido" for the bad name people give to it over this one instance.

    People point to Nanking as if to say "how dare the Japanese do this type of thing to the noble Chinese" and fail to point out the Chinese atrocities in Tibet, or any other army's atrocities, including our own, or the "armies of the Lord", so to speak.

    It is an element of war, not specific to any one group. War is unpleasant and unpleasant things happen during war.

    It is nasty stuff.
    Douglas Wylie

    Do not learn philosophy from fortune cookie.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    1,590
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Wylie
    I think you hit the culprit- indoctrination. Now Japanese indoctrination may have included "bushido", but if "bushido" had not been available (as was the case with the Germans) they would have used something else to indoctrinate the soldiers with (divine right/racism/whatever).
    Just to re-emphasize a point, I don't think the Japanese indoctrination included "bushido" at all-- it included a particular interpretation of bushido that bore only the most passing resemblance to the views held by the samurai of old. The Japanese government developed this interpretation of bushido specifically to assist in creating a modern army, working with the tools that they had just like the Germans did. In that, I think you and I are basically saying the same thing.

    I don't think that the spiritual training of budo is a bad thing-- I just think that it is inherently dangerous. Just like swords. They can be darn useful little things, but if you slip with them, you get cut. Ellis Amdur has a great article along these lines-- I think it's called "Hiding in the Shadows of the Warrior" and is available at koryu.com

    I once again fail to see how it is hypocritical of me to condemn what the Japanese did, or how what people did back when bronze was the "cutting edge" of weapon's technology is relevant.
    David Sims

    "Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - Terry Pratchet

    My opinion is, in all likelihood, worth exactly what you are paying for it.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fukushima, Japan
    Posts
    123
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Wylie
    Agreed, this isn't supposed to be a biblical debate.

    The point was, that the Japanese were not so different in their waging of war than many other cultures, including the earlier days of our own culture.

    Therefore, demonizing them for what happened in Nanking is hypocritical.
    Do you read your own posts when you write them down? YOU brought up the "Japanese" and their supposed Budo, strong spirit, etc... in "WORLD WAR 2"!!!! I answered, You hopped on to another subject, and then another, and again, as if you were running away. You brought up the bible and the cristians! The Chinese, The Mongols, The Romans etc... Now back to the "Japanese" in "WW2".


    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Wylie
    But not "just like". The Germans did not have budo/bushido/whatever you want to call it.

    Thinking like a scientist- You get 2 experiments with the same results (Germany and Japan committing atrocities), but only one received a certian stimulus (bushido), you can exclude the stimulus as a cause for the results.

    I think you hit the culprit- indoctrination. Now Japanese indoctrination may have included "bushido", but if "bushido" had not been available (as was the case with the Germans) they would have used something else to indoctrinate the soldiers with (divineright/racism/whatever).
    What "Bushido" are you talking about?, stop watching The Last Samurai! There was no "Bushido", or whatever you want to call it, in what they did. Do you know what "Yamato Damashii" means? It means "spirit of Japan" which in that time(world war 2, and also beginning from meiji) was cannoted as racial superiority and a sense of invincibility, and they stuck "bushido" in there just to make it "we habu samurai supirito", bla, bla.

    here is a text taken from Hirohito and the making of modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix


    Kokutai no hongi was a discourse on the kokutai, and on the emperor's ideological and spiritual role as the exemplar of national benevolance and morality. A transitional ideological tract, it did not completely reject Western thought and institutions, but went beyond merely emphasizing Japanese cultural distinctiveness. Extolling the "bright", "pure", and selfless "heart" of the Japanese, and counterposing the kokutai to modern Western individualism and "abstract totalitarianisms", it stressed the absolute superiority of the Japanese people and state over all other nations. "We loyal subjects differ completely in our nature from so called citizens of Western nations.... We always seek in the emperorthe source of our lives and activities."
    That was the education in that time, not Budo seishin, strong spirt, "Bushido" etc... and to tell you the truth there are some in Japan that are still stuck with that in their head. But, I could care less of what they think! I still love my wife, daughter and in-laws, no doubt. There is alot of good stuff and very, and mean very nice people, but there is a side that you probably never saw before, and it's real sad.
    Tom Karazozis
    °®«ËéÈ -Kanshiketsu!

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    Douglas

    If one is supposed to "think like a scientist" then one should probably take special care that they were not reduceing vastly complex social/historical events to simple output options like "atrocites."

    The example of the "stimulus" in question (bushido) should be more accuratly framed in terms of "possible" effect of the stimulus--not a direct, 100% causitive agent.
    At best, you can only add a "possible" to the situation, not remove causation utterly.

    As DDATFUS mentioned the Ellis Amdur book is an excellent read.

    "Bushido"--to use that term, is like any other philosophical tract, some would have followed its precepts to the letter, some just the "spirit", some would use it justify the most horrible of acts, some use only the sections they wish to--and ignore the rest.
    Chris Thomas

    "While people are entitled to their illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them upon others."

    "Team Cynicism" MVP 2005-2006
    Currently on "Injured/Reserve" list due to a scathing Sarcasm pile-up.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    320
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    My point is to bring to light that ALL warfare contains some element of this kind of behavior, and vindicate "bushido" for the bad name people give to it over this one instance.
    The opposite is true also. Sometimes "Bushido" gets credit it doesn't deserve or is used rather lackadaisically to cover a lapse in scholarship.

    For example, in the December 2006 issue of Military History there appears an article entitled "Spirit of the Samurai" by John Koster. It deals with the life and death of General Maresuke Nogi. Towards the end of the article there is the following quote:

    Nogi was a stern Samurai whose soldiers called themselves "human bullets," and he spared neither his men, his sons nor himself in the pursuit of honor. It is doubtful, however, that he would have approved some of the methods Hirohito later endorsed, ranging from the mass corruption of Manchuria through deliberate introduction of morphine and heroin, to the Nazi-style medical experiments on the Chinese and Soviet prisoners and the fascination with germ warfare that percolated out of the palace once Hirohito was enthroned. These tactics had little to do with the samurai's code of honor in warfare. (Emphasis added.)
    The final sentence affirms that there, indeed, existed in 1912 a singular Samurai style of warfare that would have at its base Bushido. No mention is made that the tactics mentioned were expressly prohibited under international law at the time. Rather, the appeal is made to the specific cultural enjoinders. Also, it is simply accepted that Bushido survived intact the massive modernization of Meiji. Generals, the assumption is, would have availed themselves of this code.

    This type of categorization raises some sticky issues. For one, if the emperor himself is not abiding by the cultural code of Japan, can it be said to have any force? Did the rebels of Satsuma claim Bushido for their own or is the emperor the final arbiter? Where does international law figure in? Does it take precedence over Bushido?

    How did the controversial start of the Russo-Japanese war square with Bushido and the "Samurai code of honor"?

    Earlier in the article, Koster is talking about the Russian withdrawal from Port Arthur, and the fact that they did so with such haste that they left behind many Russian wives and widows. He then says:

    To their credit, the Japanese put them on a train unmolested.
    Why "To their credit"? These were unarmed female non-belligerents. What other possible course could the Japanese have taken and still maintained their "Samurai code of honor"?

    Much is also made in the article of Nogi's (and his wife's) suicide following Hirohito's death as the fulfillment of Samurai honor.

    The point I'm trying to make (and perhaps it is unfair to pick on an article in Military History) is that many Western authors throw out the mystique of Bushido and the Samurai without really looking at the legitimacy of their claims. They use it to make one limited point without thinking about the far-reaching implications of assigning global causality to a specific code that has always been a bit of a boondoggle for us in the West to put into context.

    As Chris said above, it's not really that simple. Most of the stuff out there doesn't do a good enough job of making this point. So, we make erroneous suppositions and get a fuzzy picture of what really went on.

    Nanking may or may not have been a result of the twisiting of Bushido; what is not up for debate is whether or not it was against international law. That (I think) is the salient point. One's cultural codes take a back seat to international conventions that one signs off on.

    Kevin Cantwell
    Last edited by K. Cantwell; 20th February 2007 at 00:19.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •