|
Lastly the notion of Okinawan dance, especially those referred to as Mēkata 舞方, containing secret karate techniques is highly unlikely. Firstly, the first evidence found of such a claim is by Funakoshi and Fuyu in the early 20th century with popularity reaching an apex in the 1950s (Quast, 2013). Ironically, said dances were all but obsolete by the 1950’s. This could suggest that the rising popularity of karate in the post-war was utilised to revive a dying cultural heritage by making a connection between the two. Secondly as most of these dances originated with the lower classes they would have little, if any, knowledge of the upper classes self defence techniques. If such techniques were openly know their effectiveness would be moot. Indeed this popular dance connection seems to derive from the above notion that karate was well known by the populace of Okinawa - it wasn't. Most likely what occured is a simple process of reverse engineering and once karate kata became widely known people romantically looked to a plebian dance and made a connection. That there is a similarity between the outward moves are quite possible as the culture, clothes and traditions both karate and dance share originate from the same locale. To claim however that dance deliberately hid karate techniques is simply without historical proof.
When China Hand Became Empty Hand As students of karate we are often left floundering for answers to question regarding the ‘ancient’ art of karate. Perhaps by tracing the roots of ‘karate’ in its modern guise we can gleam a more accurate picture? “Karate” was first accepted at the famous meeting of the Okinawa masters in 1936. For it was in that year that Okinawa adopted the kanji for ‘empty’ (空) to replace the more traditional ‘tou’ (唐){i.e.,Qing, China}. Mainland Japan’s Butotoukai had assumed the character a few years previously, and Funakoshi had been using it a little longer (Hokama, 2007). It was also at the 1936 meeting that the gi, belt and dan system were adopted to align with the mainland’s push for the unification of budo (i.e., Japanese martial arts) as initiated by the judo and kendo communities (Funakoshi, 1975; McCarthy, 2018; McKenna, 2009). Indeed the call to eradicate the use of the ‘tou’ fell in line with the mass militarisation that was taking place in Taisho (1912-26) and early Showa (1926-89) period. These were years of chaos for Japan both internally and externally. Internally Japan was seeking to catch up with the ‘western’ powers through rapid social, economic and educational change. The period was marked by a number of political assassinations and a rising power of the military. The great Hanshin Earthquake (1922) exacerbated the situation as the capital lay in ruins. Externally Japan had been disappointed with its treatment at the Treaty of Versailles where it had expected better rewards, in terms of territory, from the Allied Powers who it had fought with. The tension created by a desire to be held in high esteem by other world powers, a dire lack of natural resources, a booming population and a rising militarism unfolded in the Manchurian Crisis (1931-33). This crisis witnessed Japan flex is imperial muscle and ultimately leave the League of Nations in protest of its call for Japan to remove itself from China. During and after the crisis Japan began to publicly devalue and distance itself from a Chinese connection. In numerous public statements of this period the Chinese were presented as an underdeveloped people and culture in need of the enlightened guidance and control of the benevolent Japanese. Such a view is not uniquely Japanese and indeed China had a similar view of the entire world during its Ming and Quing periods. Closer to home, for this author, is the relationship between the British Empire and Ireland. That a similar perspective was a driving force in Japan and its move to eliminate the ‘tou’ and replace it with the more esoteric ‘kara’ kanji is well documents (McCarthy, 2018; Hokama 2007). Moreover, the formal annexation of the Ryukyu Islands by mainland Japan in the late 1890s had led to a political divisions in Okinawa between those who wanted closer ties to Japan, those who wanted to keep its ties to imperial China, and those who wanted to remain independent. However, given the poverty of Okinawa and the proximity of Japan, the former group held sway. That so many young Okinawa’s of means left Okinawa to pursue their fortune on the mainland is a testament to this assertion. Indeed the migration of the second generation of karate pioneers such as Funakoshi, Motobu and later Mabuni, Miyagi and Chitose was in line with their social, gender and economic positioning (Okinawa Prefecture). On the mainland the message was clear, adapt to the belief in the superiority of the Japanese race or get left behind was only too enforced by its propaganda, education system and declining democracy. Thus ‘tou’, which can also be pronounced as ‘kara’, was dropped and replaced by the more acceptable and esoteric ‘sore/kara’. The addition of ‘michi’ (道) reinforced this pseudo-religious alignment of martial arts to the development of the self and ultimately the nationalistic tendencies encouraged by the central government and in particular the Ministry of Education (McKenna, 2009; McCarthy, 2018). Indeed, karate fundamentally shifted during this age from a closely guarded system of self-defence that was passed down orally to one of mass participation sport where testing one’s fighting spirit in the development of a Japanese spirit was the goal. It is from this root that most of what we consider modern karate took root. Indeed for this modern birth of karate, there is a volume of written materials. Starting during the late Meiji and the call for Itosu to introduce karate to the Okinawan school system there is a plethora of information which can be cross-referenced and used to uncover the roots of karate. However, pre 1880s the waters are far murkier. We do know there was a civil self-defence system in place which was often referred to as ‘tou-di’ or simply ‘ti’ but what exactly it was, has thus far not been identified through historical research. There are some historical references to the fighting system as far back as the early 1600s and demonstrations made for public dignitaries such as that given before the 27th Sappushi in 1683 (Hokama, 2007). Much has been made of the direct line of karate to China and in particular Fuken-sho or Fujian province. While there is indeed some pollination of Chineses Quanfa pre-Meiji at present it would appear to be haphazard rather than a direct, consistent flow. What is also worth remembering is the Qing government (that is the one referred to by the ‘tou’ kanji) banned the practice of Chinese boxing and burned the Shaolin temple to the ground in 1727 (Hokama, 2007). Indeed there is an irony here for the very kanji which some Okinawa’s used to tie themselves to a Chinese martial past represents the dynasty that leveled the Shaolin temple. Moreover, the mass failure of the Boxer Rebellion 1899-1901 sent shock waves through the martial arts community as the utter failure of Chinese boxing in light of modern warfare was only too clear. That the ‘tou’ kanji was continued to be used in Okinawa was perhaps more a testament to a romantic notion of the past rather than a clear assessment of the direct origins of karate. Indeed the activity of pirates, typhoons and choppy seas ensured that the economic, social and cultural connection to China was always a tenuous one. Another plausible source contributing to historical origins or influence on karate lies in Jigen Ryu. A koryu (i.e. traditional martial art as opposed to a civil self-defence system), Jigen Ryu has its origins among the samurai of the Satsuma clan in what is modern-day Kagoshima. Starting in 1609 the Satsuma first invaded and then set up a strong influence in the independent Ryukyu Kingdom. As part of an outlier of the newly established Bakufu, or centralised Japanese military government, the Satsuma could not officially take control of the neighbouring kingdom. However, on behalf of the Bakufu, they maintained a ‘significant influence’ in Ryukyu. Officially the kingdom was considered part of the Satsuma domain, although they kept their king and outward trappings of independence such as their king and local government. Moreover, under the Satsuma, for the second time in its history the Okinawan government banned all weapons in an effort to ensure rebellions, such as that led by Christinas in nearby Kyushu in 1837-38, did not occur. Jigen Ryu’s influence on karate may be suggested by its stance of hasso kamae, its emphasis on first strike and its developed two-man drills. Its kiai, although in line with practices in other koryu, is generally of a higher pitch and arguably reflected in the kiai of karate, which of course Chinese martial arts do not have. However, at present, the evidence for the influence is still very much at the conjecture level. Reinforcing the ban on weapons after Satsuma invasion, the number of weapons in Okinawa were recorded as ‘300 muskets, 100 swords and armour with helmets’ (Hokama, 2007, p. 19) not a particularly large number considering the military might of the Satsuma and the considerable length of the Okinawa archipelago. Farmers were banned from moving into the districts of Shuri, Naha, Tomari and Kume, places where ‘ti’ was actively taught. Lastly, between this proclamation and the formal annexation of Ryukyu in the late Meiji, there were very few uprisings by Okinawa’s against their mainland counterparts. Given the hefty annual tribute Okinawa had to pay to the Satsuma and the banning of all tarde for Ryukyu except with China and Japan may seem to suggest that the situation was fertile for such a revolt. Perhaps the Okinawa’s were tempered by the fact that their only foreign trading partner, China, was is disarray during the late Qing dynasty? Likewise, the island benefitted as it was a loophole under Japan’s closed country policy (鎖国) that permitted China and Japan to trade (Hendrickx, 2007). Perhaps this historically documented fact will finally dispel the myth that Karate and Kobudo were developed by farmers to help fight against the tyranny of Japanese samurai. There again, probably not as the myth makes for a very romantic marketing campaign. That the upper Pechin classes in Okinawa practised, Jigen Ryu is documented (McCarthy, 2018; Swift, forthcoming) and known as is the oral tradition and some scant written documentation that Chinese martial arts were present, albeit, haphazardly in Okinawa from at least the 1600s (McCarthy, 2018; Hokama, 2007; McKenna, 2009). That such systems were practised to fight against the Japanese bears no historical merit. In fact the origins of karate may be, and again here we are dealing with plausibility and theory rather than facts, a practice developed to police the ports, provide some assurances against pirate or actions in the ports (such as drunk and disorderly activity in and around the various red-light districts). There is also the possibility that it was practised as a means of protecting the king. However, attacks on this position do not seem to be commonplace. Drawing on the anthropology of the region where the indigenous fighting systems of the Maori, Indonesia and Hawaiian peoples it is not such a stretch to believe that the Okinawa’s also had a pre-historical fighting system. Indeed Funakoshi (1950) who notes of the tegumi wrestling of his youth may unknowingly be referencing part of what had been and continues to be a connection with this prehistoric past. However, this is pure speculation and to assert that it is ‘truth’ and is embodied in a unique ‘ti’ system is to do a disservice to the pioneers of karate both early and modern. So where does that leave us? It would appear that karate has its origins in a mixture of Jigen Ryu, the only officially sanctioned martial art in Ryukyu, a haphazard influx of Chinese boxing and the ingenuity of an upper class who were responsible for keeping the peace without having legal access to the usual arms associated with such an expectation. The claims of an independent system of ‘ti’ and/or a direct, consistent lineage to China are simply without historical merit. From a historical perspective, we are on sound ground when studying karate from the late Meiji to the present but before that evidence is scant. Perhaps the work of anthropologist will be able to delve deeper into the quagmire that is karate and offer a keener insight. However, for the present, we should continue to study what we have been left and continue to, as Basho stated, ‘seek not to copy the old masters but rather to seek what they sought’. Selected Bibliography Funakoshi, F., 1975. Kararet0Do: My Way of Life. Kodansha International Press: Tokyo. Hendrickx, Katrien (2007), The Origins of Banana-fibre Cloth in the Ryukyus, Japan, Leuven University Press, Belgium Hokama, T., 2007. Timeline of Karate History: Pre-History to 2000. Joe Swift (trans). Ozatao Print Co. : Okinawa. McCarthy, P. 2018. Legend of the Fist: Vol. #1. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: USA Quast, A., (2013). Mekata and Ti = Okinawan Pogo or Dancefloor Wingchun? Ryukyu Bugei 琉球武芸. http://ryukyu-bugei.com/?p=1525 (accessed March 15, 2019) Uehara, Sekicihi., (1997) Interview located at: https://youtu.be/m5o7x5SHdu8 , accessed March, 9th, 2019. Various. 2013. Challenges for Japan-China Relations and Okinawa. Okinawa Prefecture Government. Various. 2009. An Overview of Karatedo. Mario McKenna (trans). Independently Published: Vancouver. Various. 2015. The Essence of Naha-te. Joe Swift (trans). Joe Swift. Lulu Press: Tokyo.
0 Comments
Over the past decade or so, especially with the production of the series Okinawan Karate Masters and the pronouncements of ShinjinBukan founder Onaga-Sensei there has arisen a belief in a progenitor of modern karate called ‘ti’ (手). Indeed it was such a belief that one of Onaga’s predecessors, Chiban-Sensei began a search for this mythical practice in the 1930s only to give up due to a lack of evidence. The thrust of this article argues that the notion of ‘ti’ as a separate, indigenous art is actually a modern construct that has been tied to a mythical past.
I have spent the best part of 20 years living and working in Japan and having met and discussed the historical roots of karate with most of the leading figures both in the West and in Japan. Additionally, as a trained historian, I have brought the methodology of historical research to the elusive history of karate and what follows is a small excerpt which I hope you will find thought-provoking. This paper is an attempt to create an academic debate around this topic and to move it from the hallowed halls of uncritical acceptance into a public forum where ideas and proofs can be developed. To this end I have provided citations and a selected bibliography. How the Modern Concept of Ti Arose The modern concept of ‘ti’ comes from two schools. Aside from the aforenoted Onaga one, there is also a lineage through Uehara Seikichi, which appears to originate in the traditional wrestling style known as ‘tegumi’ and resembles aikijutsu. It is clear that Sekichi’s “ti’ originated from his training in Motobu Ryu (Uehara Interview, 1997) and as such any claims from those who followed him that his system can be considered ‘ti’ are simply misleading and an affront to the teachings of Seikichi-Sensei. ‘Ti’ means ‘hand’ and is a general term used throughout East Asia to refer to all martial arts. Indeed McCarthy (Volume 10) attest to the existence of an early 1600’s letter from Ryukyu (i.e. Okinawa) of the term being used in such a manner. The generic use of ‘ti’ would appear to refer to all types of martial arts that include grappling, striking and in some cases weapons. Some may point to the use of ti (also read as Te) in various forms such as the well known Naha-te, Shuri-te or Tomari-te, sadly these terms only began to be used in 1927 and later (McKenna, 2009; Swift, 2015). In this post and following post I wish to explore and dispel the claim that it is a separate discipline. Indeed looking at the historical time frame when the term ‘ti’ gained popularity it seems rooted in either an Okinawan desire to reclaim karate from Japan or a marketing tool seeking to cash in on those seeking to learn a mystical, secret deadly fighting. This is the stuff of legend and ‘hollywood’ not the stuff of historical fact. In this post I give a very general introduction to 'principal centere' theories off leadership. I also cross reference it with some historical evidence drawn from personal experience during the Ontario, Canada education 'reform' of the late 1990s and is often forgotten today as Ontario is heralded for its great education system. This is part one of a two part blog. In the second I shall explore another Principal centered model, loosely coalescing around the term 'transformative'. Please enjoy and feedback always welcome.
There are no actual educational schools of thought that define themselves as principal-centred and leadership team-centred, these are terms we shall use to embrace a wide spectrum of theories that share commonalities. Principal-centred theories are those that perceive the principal as the central agent leading a school towards increased effectiveness. There is a wide spectrum of principle-centred theory however, the defining thread is, as noted, the principal is envisioned and empowered as the central figure in educational leadership. Among the first models of educational leadership within this spectrum to emerge was that of transformational leadership. Grounded in the business model of leadership this model casts the principal in the role of exploring the possibilities of new developments (Cheng 2002. Hoyle and Wallace 2005), transacting with other players, and applying various behavioural and strategic plans in an effort to bring a personal vision of school effectiveness to fruition (Cheng, 2002, p. 54 – 57). In essence, this model acts upon the premise that the principal exerts influence to bring about effective change. Within Cheng’s premise, the principal operates at different layers, each of which contains a contingency plan to deal with emerging and unforeseen issues: there is a central overriding plan. For example, during the imposition of educational reforms, many principals of Ontario state schools in the 1990’s were left floundering. The introduction of a complete new K-12 curriculum, including benchmarks and standards, the introduction of provincial-wide exams, increased contact-time for teachers and students, increased work-load and a decrease in funding, were but a few of the many areas principal were charged with implementing. Had Cheng’s model of transformational leadership been employed, principals could have developed and implemented contingency plans using the various agencies available. First and foremost principals could have developed a participative management system where the various components of the reforms were divided among groups who would implement the reforms under the guidance of the principal (Cheng, 2002 p. 54). Next, principals could “exercise their leadership through their effective, behavioural and cognitive performance” (Cheng, 2002, p.54) whereby they used their personal charisma, legal power and interpersonal relationships to encourage and persuade others to effectively implement the reforms. Finally, the principals would introduce and explain these changes to stakeholders, outline a plan of action, and look for suggestions to improve the implementation (Cheng, 2002, p. 55). In essence the principal would develop a strategic plan to deal with the challenge and through exercising their various layers influence enact an effective plan (Cheng, 2002, p.56). One of the great challenges to unpacking karate as an academic pursuit is the lack of primary sources and the mythologizing of many of its more recent principle leaders. This article https://seinenkai.com/articles/mckenna/mckenna-kata.html by Mario McKenna helps clear up the myth and confusion generated by the Shorei and Shorin 'lineages' - enjoy!!!
For those not familiar with the research of Patrick McCarthy into Karate and Kobudo you may find the following links helpful - highly recommend all:
RKRS Facebook Patrick McCarthy Facebook IRKRS Youtube IRKRS Blog Also for excellent books by Joe Swift and Mario McKenna - check out their pages at : http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/joeswift and http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bechurinatgmaildotcom respectively! Coming as I did from a grounding in the Ontario Public education system, I was quite surprised to see the variety of models of leadership employed at International schools. Specifically, I was initially taken aback at the explicit criticism often directed at Principals/Heads of School by the faculty. Indeed the questioning of decisions even after they had become policy and their belief in an ongoing agency to negotiate such policy was new to me. It made me rethink my accepted models of leadership. What follows in the coming weeks will be parts of an essay I wrote for Mike Fertig at the University of Bath as a few years back. As it is rather long, I shall post in segments. The first instalment sets the field with an academic overview of what do we mean by educational leadership?
As we prepare to enter the third decade of the the twenty-first century, many new agents are at play, creating a need to rethink traditional paradigms. Aging populations in first world nations progressively scrutinized public spending and especially publicly funded organizations. Increasingly, free markets economies through the forces of globalisation, have not only increased global trade but also increased the number of transient workers. Unprecedented access to information that the Internet has permitted has aided in the democratization of knowledge. Not surprisingly, as such forces interact, societies look to secure their future and, in particular, the future of their children. Education has become a central concern for nations and citizens as they seek to make sense of the global changes. New curricula, standards based assessment, and efficiency of spending has begun to enter the lexicon of educational debate. Arguably, no area has received greater interest than the field of educational leadership. After all, it is these very leaders who are to ensure children are prepared to become effective participants in the new global paradigm. Or are they? Are traditional educational leadership models outdated and no-longer effective in dealing with new forces and expectations at play within schools? Or are these traditional models tested and true and thus guarantee past success will continue? The central question thus is: what constitutes effective school leadership? While an exploration of all literature within this field is impossible, a healthy sampling reveals the existence of two main schools of thought in educational leadership: principle-centred and leadership-team centred. Through an exploration of the major tenets within each of these schools of thought, and an assessment of how these theories compared to actual practice, what emerges is they offer viable insights into the dilemmas and challenges leaders must address in serving and leading educational communities. Before we begin, it is necessary to identify some key terms. Those who are assigned the role of leading schools are known by various titles within private, public and international school sectors. For our purposes we shall call this central person the principal. Additionally confounding, is the idea of leadership. Again for our purposes, leadership entails those administrative, leadership and vision activities that enable schools to create effective learning environments. Lastly, the notion of ‘effective’ varies from society to society as well as between and within schools. What needs to be explored are those leadership attitudes, practices and formats that best suit the context of the school and lead to effective decisions and actions being undertaken. Thus, herein effective means effectiveness of leadership format. Finally while there are no actual educational schools of thought that define themselves as principal-centred and leadership team-centred, these are terms we shall use to embrace a wide spectrum of theories that share commonalities. Principal-centred theories are those that perceive the principal as the central agent leading a school towards increased effectiveness; team-centred theories are those that suggest the school is most effectively guided by the work and co-operation of teams with a shared agency and responsibility. What follows is part of an abstract I wrote back in 2010 for work I was undertaking as part of my EdD studies at the University of Bath, under the guidance of Professor Hugh Lauder. I share it here to help ground what I see as a confusion in intentional schools between what constitutes policy and what constitutes practice. From my experience most of these schools confuse or interchangeably uses these terms. This is most likely a result of their situated ness outride of local educational bodies. I do hope this post proves thought provoking. I have included citations to help with identifying key ideas and thinkers within the field.
“Access”, “Meritocracy”, “Parental Choice”, “Market Economy” are sampling of the catch phrases which abound within education policy over the past four decades as calls for, and encouragement of education democratisation formed the bulk of education reform (Brown, 1990). Ironically coinciding with these calls has been recognition of a growing gap in access to quality education– a gap that is evident both intra and inter national (CfBT Trust 2007), the ‘McKinsey report’, 2007., Lauder et.al. 2011., Lauder and Brown 2001., Tooley 2009., Hirsch 1977 and Collins 1977). Indeed a whole new industry, such as that spearheaded by PISA, has developed which seeks to support stakeholders insure that their young are educated on par with their global counterparts. Adding complexity to this educational are a new global transient workforce whose skills and knowledge are in such demand that they often live abroad for a protracted period of time only to find that when they return to their host country it may no longer meet their or their children’s needs. Partially in response to these global transients international schools have also shown dramatic growth rates since the 1960’s. While a concise definition of what constitutes an international school is still emergent (Lauder, 2007; Hayden and Thompson, 2000; Gellar, 2002) what is clear is firstly that their on-going growth appears to show little sign of abating as globalisation itself continues to expand and secondly that many of these school operate beyond the educational authority of their host countries. However, such schools have been little explored in relation to their access. While most of these schools claim to promote such universal values as peace (Thomas, 1998), global-mindedness (Allen, 2000; Thompson 1998) and capitalism (Cambridge, 2002) only one study, Wilkinson (1998), explicitly studies access to and concluded they were “very much… the privilege of the rich ” (Wilkinson, 1998, p. 234). Bourdieu (1984), Foucault (1975), Freire (2005), Brown and Lauder (1998), Weiner (1994), Kumar (1995) and Codd (1988) are but a few of the notable names questioning the traditional rational technocratic/empiricist approach to policy analysis and understanding. While drawing upon various disciplines and epistemes, critics note that policies are rooted in the language, discursive spaces and time/space continuum in which they are constructed and as such are not normatively neutral. Therefore, to understand policy is necessary to not only explore what is said, but how it is understood and enacted; to broaden the discursive lens so it includes statement to praxis in an effort to create a coherent sense-making event. Policy is the result of a determination which is open to input and will change depending on the time/space in which it is created, in other words policy is more than its stated content, it is a living entity (Codd, 1988; Lasswell, 1955; Gordon et al. 1977; Bourdieu and Passerson, 1977; Popkewitz, 1997; Brown and Lauder 200) and as such carries both explicit and implicit assumptions and aims. Policy therefore has at its core etic and emic actualisations wherein power relations are created and those assigned the policy enactment roles serve as gatekeepers not only to implementation but also to a membership. It is this power-relation enactment and sense making attempts of gatekeepers that the present study is grounded So I will share thoughts, reflections and research under the following headings:
Education Karate Kobudo KoRyu Budo (Iaido, Shuriken, Jojitsu) Arts (mostly written) That way will help keep items organized and easy to read until I learn to use the blog more effectively. Most of the research I will share will be sure to include citations as a core goal of this blog is to inform but also to point the way for further investigation. This is particularly of importance under the above as too often discussions slip into personal opinion or unsubstantiated claims presented uncritically. Hopefully, the blog will serve as a springboard for those interested to read, think, research and discuss pertinent issues more deeply. Questions always welcome. Life is a mixture of art and discursive space. Welcome to my blog. Here is space where I delve into items that matter to me - especially around notions of education, intercultural competencies and 'global-mindedness'. Often I will chat about these items based on research, but at other times, I will also use the vehicle of Japanese martial arts to share ideas and insights. Two-roads crossing. As 'Uncle' Walt Whitman stated 'if I contradict myself, I contradict myself for I am immense'. Anyway, let's see how this blogging lark goes!
|
James M. HatchInternational Educator who happens to be passionate about Chito Ryu Karate. Born in Ireland, educated in Canada, matured in Japan Archives
October 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed
