|
By James M. Hatch, EdD
In this piece, I would like to explain why much of what is written regarding karate history is actually not history, but rather a story usually told by men. Part of this confusion lies in the fact that unless you have studied history beyond secondary school level the discipline of history remains unknown. A major misconception is that history is about truth. Actually, it is about developing arguments that are viable and valid. Truth is usually the speciality of philosophy, as is not a concept that historians think much about. So when people make statements such as ‘history teacher’ they are missing the mark. History as a discipline interprets, it doesn’t teach. Henri Poincaré the French mathematician, sums up this idea nicely when he states: ‘Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.’ The process of history is about building the house. The second cornerstone of history is that it deals with written documents. If it is dealing with anything else then there is a good chance it may not be history. Of course, every rule is an exception. For example, a historian may use photos to support an argument but the argument will usually be grounded in documents. The process of verifying an argument will involve triangulation and visual sources may be part of this, however, strictly speaking, solely relying on visual sources is not history. And herein lies the major problem when exploring Okinawan budo history - a lack of documents. Historians of Okinawa note studying Okinawa history prior to the 1600s usually means relying on Chinese, Japanese and Korean sources as the level of literacy, even among the gentry, was very low (Smits, 2020). This is unlike Japan where we have articles on bujitsu dating back to the Heian Period {794CE}, a period of great literature composition, especially among the ruling elite. We have even more documents from the waring States period starting with the Ashikaga Era and into the early Tokugawa {circa 1400CE and later - 161} (Uozumi, 2005; Bennett, 2020). How then is history ‘made’? Like all disciplines, historians first collect as many facts as reasonable possible. As history is infinite there needs to be some scoping around what to include/exclude. This can is usually done via primary and secondary sources. One challenge herein can be using translation. However, most historians have at least a working knowledge of the language they are working within, and they will also know who the top translators are in the field and work with their materials. The role of finding a good translator cannot be overemphasized, especially when working with a high context language such as Japanese and translating it into English (generally considered a lower context language/culture). Once the facts are collected then a process of triangulation, usually takes place. Triangulation looks to other sources (in this case beyond the text) to substantiate and help make sense of the written text. This may involve, checking visual sources, oral traditions, cross-referencing with other disciplines, checking national archives etc. The basic rule is if you are going to say something, you should have at least 3 types of sources to ensure it is a viable assertion (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). Of special note here is the red-flag oral traditions present for historians, especially when working within Confucian based societies (Raleigh Yow, 2000; Liu, 2013). Indeed, historians will tend to leave oral history to a sociologist or cultural anthropologist as navigating such dilemma’s is considerable. Once the general structure of the facts is gathered and verified, the next stage involves sorting and sense-making of these facts. If the study is a local one, it may look at local and national events to help contextualise the event. However, an increasingly growing trend within history is loosely called ‘big history’ where global events may be considered as a potentially shaping force in what has been found. For example, any study of Okinawan budo that does not consider the massive upheaval of the Meiji restoration, as well as the Boxer Rebellion, most likely will miss the mark. As Okinawa during this period was caught between China and Japan during this period. Likewise, any modern exploration of this topic which does not take into account the rising ‘nationalism’ of Okinawan’s currently unfolding may fail to grasp the full extent of the situation. For example, the rising assertion that if you are not studying Okinawan Goju (a whole topic unto itself), Shorin Ryu or Uechi Ryu then you are not studying authentic Okinawan karate. Moreover, karate tourism is now one of the largest exports of Okinawa (Shinoda, 2019) and since its inception, there has always been a financial aspect to budo. It is also at this stage that historiography may enter the picture as history has a massive amount of data available and often the challenge is how can an historian sift through it all to make a viable argument. This is also at the stage where history moves from a simple narrative into a more academic pursuit of interpretation which seeks to explain. The last stage is that the argument is presented in a paper or at a conference where it undergoes rigorous peer review and criticism (hopefully constructive!). It is then returned to the author for updates, amendments etc. It is only with its publication that a work of history can be considered to have met the requirements of academic rigour and thus accepted as part of an historical ‘canon’. So what does this all mean for practitioners? On one level, nothing, after all the past is the past and Okinawan budo has moved on since coming into the mainstream during the Meiji period. On the other, if you are interested in the roots of what you study and its evolution then critically engaging with what you are told is vital. Ask yourself why is this event being recalled? Who is telling it? What am I suppose to take away from this information? What you may find is that what you are told has a whole agenda behind it. In the Okinawan budo world, the agenda often is driven by men who have a particular take on ‘what and why’ the story is being told. You may also find that notions of ‘legitimacy’ and ‘power’ are central to the history you are being told. Indeed the story may turn out to be historically accurate, but chances are if it has not gone through the above-noted process then it remains a personal opinion and not history. Selected Works Cited: Bennett, A., 2020. Bushido Explained: The Japanese Samurai Code: A New Interpretation for Beginners. Tuttle Publishing. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S., 2011. Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (eds.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Inc. Liu, Y. 2013. Confucian Rituals and Chinese Villagers: Ritual Change and Social Transformation in a Southeastern Chinese Community, 1368-1949. BRILL. Raleigh Yow, M., 2005. Recording Oral History: A Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Altamira Press; 2nd edition. Shinoda, Y., 2019. Karate tourism to Okinawa booms ahead of Tokyo Olympics. Available at: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/548/. Smits, G. 2020. Maritime Ryukyu, 1050–1650. University of Hawai’i Press. Uozumi, T. 2005; From the Perspective of Japanese Intellectual History in Budo Perspectives (Vol. 1) ed. A Benett. BunkashaInternationall Corp.
0 Comments
 The Weapons Ban TheoriesPosted on April 27, 2017 by Andreas Quast (rights reserved)
According to a foundational theory of Karate, in pre-modern times an indigenous unarmed martial art of Ryūkyūan design existed. Generally referred to as Tī 手 in the native pronunciation, it is considered a native form of boxing and an original form of today’s Karate.[1] Various dates of its earliest creation sketch out a time frame extending from the 12th to the early 17th centuries.[2] The father of Okinawan studies, Iha Fuyū (1876–1947) described it as an indigenous unarmed martial art of Ryūkyū whose creation was triggered by two sequential weapon bans:
Perception of the Weapons Ban Under King Shō ShinAs regards the first weapons ban under King Shō Shin, Iha Fuyū misread the text of article 4 of the Momourasoe inscription (1509): He assumed that Shō Shin had confiscated all arms and had turned them into practical tools and utensils such as farm implements. That is, sort-of swords into plowshares.[4] This was the beginning of the theory that Shō Shin intentionally had demilitarized Ryūkyū. Based on the above, Iha further concluded that under Shō Shin by royal command the feudal lords from all territories had to locate to Shuri in order to secure peace inside the country. As preparations for war were no longer necessary, he confiscated all the arms of the whole country, without exception. George Kerr, in his influential standard work, also translated article 4 as a complete ban of the ownership and use of weapons.[5] He further added that, in an attempt to forestall the dangers of insurrection, it was first ordered that swords were no longer to be worn as personal equipment. Next, the petty lords were ordered to bring all weapons to Shuri, to be stored in a warehouse under supervision of one of the king’s officers.[6] Still in 2000 Beillevaire noted that the Ryūkyū Kingdom had been quite vulnerable since the first half of the 16th century when the local lords were disarmed and forced to reside in Shuri to prevent rebellions.[7] As regards the perception of this weapons ban, Iha clearly stated that among Karate persons King Shō Shin, by his political measure of abolishing all weapons in Ryūkyū, is considered to have provided the first major trigger for the development of Karate.[8] In Karate circles this theory is perceived as King Shō Shin’s intention to completely eliminate the military readiness of the lower warrior classes. In addition, the theory was further expanded as follows: In order to completely eliminate the military readiness, the weaponry of these warrior classes were requisitioned, stored in the Office of Revenues,[9] and placed under close supervision of the royal government in Shuri. As the carrying of weapons was prohibited, an effective unarmed martial arts developed among the ruling class warriors as the only alternative to weaponry. With the idea of felling down the enemy with one’s bare hands, Karate’s technical precision increased and formed into a weapon itself following the conception of “one strike, sure kill” (ikken hissatsu ー撃必殺).[10] Critique of the TheoryThe above given theory provided the impetus and logic for the idea that unarmed Karate developed as a result of this ban. Since the time of Iha and to this day this reasoning permeates the sublevels of the writings and theories related to the origin and development of Karate, both among Okinawan and Japanese as well as Western authors, as well as in the chitchat of practical experts. Yet, already in 1977 Nakahara Zenchū noted that there were not only weapons such as bamboo spears and Bō (fencing staves) at the time of Shō Shin, but also cut and thrust weapons, which were not Okinawan products but imported from Japan. He pointed out a serious error in Iha’s interpretation of Shō Shin’s alleged abolition of weaponry[11] and corrected the phrase in question to all sorts of cut and thrust weapons and bows and arrows were stored in magazines, in order to be used as tools for the defense of the country.[12] Furthermore citing the Ryūkyū history work Kyūyō, Nakahara explains that Shō Shin’s measure of storing weapons was not meant to abolish the armaments of the country, but rather to organize all sorts of cut and thrust weapons and other arms for the completion of the national defense.[13] It has also been pointed out that Japan excelled in the manufacturing of cut and thrust weapons, and that these weapons constituted the leading trading good to China, by which Japan became the arms factory of East Asia, so to speak, which was not a mere political idea, but an economic one.[14] That the Ryūkyū Kingdom had been heavily involved in this weapons trade within the tributary trade with China can clearly be seen in the list of tribute articles given in the official work Rekidai Hōan, among which were thousands of swords and other weaponry during the Ming era.[15] Furthermore, by explicitly stating that this theory “mainly comes from Karate people,” Nakahara, as an Okinawan, shared his first-hand experience, saying that by lumping everything together it is claimed that Shō Shin abandoned weaponry because he was a musician, as a result of which the government became one of culture, etiquette[16] and esteem for music.[17] In 1987 Sakihara Mitsugu also translated the part in question from the original text as has appeared in the Monument Inscriptions of the Ryūkyū Country,[18] giving the translation as “swords and bows and arrows are accumulated exclusively as weapons for the protection of the country.” Similar to Nakahara he concluded that King Shō Shin, far from abolishing arms, accumulated them and was proud of his superior weapons. The truth is that Ryūkyū never in her history had been officially disarmed.[19] And in 2000 Sakihara again delineated the disarmament issue in Kerr’s newly published edition. Among the Karate intelligentsia it has also been understood that weapons had prevailed among the commoners and the warrior class.[20] Actually, above described article 4 relating to the alleged weapons ban must be viewed in connection with the following article 5, i.e. “Law and order were established throughout the country” (Kerr) and “One thousand officials were awarded court ranks and one hundred officials were appointed to posts” (Sakihara). In accordance with Nakahara’s interpretation of article 4 – pointing to the completion of a system of national defense –, articles 4 and 5 actually refer to the establishment of the composite government organization called Hiki, which included all kinds of national affairs as well as the military. The described accumulation of weapons under government administration and the establishment of law and order throughout the country strongly suggest that the military equipment and personnel were placed under the administrative and operative responsibilities of the royal government organization of the Hiki. In other words, the actual meaning of the said disarmament was that the Anji were indeed stripped of the military jurisdiction over their individual troops and military equipment, but these were transferred and centralized under the jurisdiction of Shō Shin’s newly organized military government structure. Furthermore, there is no actual proof that in the above process the local troops and weaponry were physically transferred to Shuri. Rather, it seems that administrative control over troops and weaponry was mainly achieved by the implementation of local governments all over Okinawa Island, as can be seen in the case of the Guardian of Hokuzan and other local military governors, as well as in the auxiliary troops from southern Okinawa which were deployed to Shuri and Naha in case of an emergency. Such it appears that the officials sent out to the local areas by the central government were responsible for law and order in these regions, necessitating troops and weaponry themselves, which would have been provided – at least partially – by troops and equipment from magazines owned by the local communities and still in existence from the previous rule of the Anji. And this appears to be the real meaning of Shō Shin’s weapons management orders. From the above we can see that all claims of a primordial form of unarmed Karate as having developed as a result of King Shō Shin’s alleged weapons ban is a completely untenable historical fallacy. Even worse: It appears to be fictitious, artificial and wishful thinking. Footnotes[1] Cf. Miyazato 1978: 17. Shinzato 1996: 249. Kinjō 2012: 18. Nohara 2007: 56-57. Nagamine 1957: 51. Kadekaru 2012: 176. [2] OKKJ 2008: 90. Nagamine 1957: 51. Nohara 2007: 56-57. [3] Iha 1938: 310. [4] Iha 1938: 306. Text of Article 4: 服裁錦綉器用金銀専積力剣弓矢以為護国之利器此邦財用武器他州所不及也. Sakihara, in Kerr 2000: 543 [5] Kerr 1958, 105 [6] Kerr 1958: 107 [7] Beillevaire 2000: I, 26 [8] Iha 1938: 296-97 [9] 公庫, government financial institution for the management of public funds. [10] As explained by Takamiyagi Shigeru, in OKKJ 2008: 102. [11] Cf. Sakihara, in Kerr 2000: 544. [12] Citing article 4 of the Momourasoe inscription as given in the Chūzan Seifu: 「蔵二刀剣・弓矢之属一以為二護国之具一」. Nakahara gives the term Tōken 刀剣, i.e. cut and thrust weapons. The Chūzan Seifu, Vol. 6 中山世譜巻六, however, gives Manken 万劒, i.e. 10,000 swords, in the sentence 「又藏万劒弓矢之屬。以爲護國之具。」That is, „And 10,000 swords and arrows and bows and similar military equipment were placed in a magazine, in order to be deployed as tools for protecting the fatherland.” [13] Nakahara 1977: 588, 594. 「服は錦綉をたち、器は金銀を用い、専ら刀剣をつんで、以て護国の利器となす。此の邦の財用、武器、他州の及ばざる所なり」. Cf. Ishadō 2004: 82, giving the original text as 服裁錦綉器用金銀専積刀剣弓矢以為護国之利器此邦財用武器他国所不及也。 [14] Nakahara 1977: 586. [15] Cf. Uezato 2010: 224-55. [16] Reigaku 礼楽, which is considered of high importance in Confucianism to appease the actions and quiet the minds of the people. [17] Nakahara 1977: 592 [18] Ryūkyū-koku-chū Himonki 琉球国中碑文記 [19] Sakihara 1987: 199. [20] See, for instance, Shinzato Katsuhiko, in OKKJ 2008: 105. © 2017, Andreas Quast. All rights reserved.  McMahon Sensei lives in Australia and share this wonderful, thought provoking article, written by his dad, just over 20 years ago. the thoughts and insights remain relevant. The original was recently reposted on on Facebook - it is republished her with permission
CAUTION: The below article pulls no punches and makes no apologies, however if you truly want to understand Karate then read on and absorb the information. My Discussions with Mitani Sensei .. one of the last teachers of original karate! By Bob McMahon, 7th Dan, Seitokukai Karate Mitani Kazuya Sensei, 7th Dan in Original Traditional Karate, is a student of the late last Master of the original Karate, Kinjo Hiroshi, 9th Dan, Hanshi. Kazuya Sensei is attempting to alert karateka from around the world to the possibility that original karate may soon be lost to us all! He feels it is his duty to speak out about the original karate before it disappears from the world altogether. He is receiving both pleasant and unpleasant email communications in regard to his forthright views. He said, “I hardly speak about the truth in Japan because many karate teachers do not favour the truth. They prefer to hide it.” According to Mitani Kazuya, Sokon Matsumura is the true pioneer of karate. He was an expert in Jigen-Ryu swordmanship and used the concepts and principles from this art to influence the Te of Okinawa in the Shuri district. This influence was so deep that the term ‘Shuri Te’ (Shurite) is considered to be the Te of Matsumura. Very few karateka, Japanese included, are aware of this. Matsumura’s students, such as Kentsu Yabu, Chotokyu Kyan and Chomo Hanashiro were also experts in Shurite. Although Ankou Itosu was also an expert, it was not until he turned 60 years of age that he finally understood Shurite at last. Itosu was teaching Shurite before he created karate for school students at the request of the Okinawan Board of Education. Karate was the name given to the Martial Arts program of the school curriculum for Physical Education. However Gichin Funakoshi, Kenwa Mabuni, Kanken Toyama and others cannot be called experts because they did not know what Mitani Sensei refers to as ‘maniau’ technology. I’ll return to this issue a little further down. Mitani Sensei follows the ‘Ten Teachings of Itosu’, which he refers to as the ‘textbook’ of karate. He says that the physical aim of karate is to seize and down an enemy. Strike the enemy first (kumite), then seize and finally restrain (osae) or throw (nage) him to the ground. There are occasions when grappling (toride) can be used first. This is the technology of karate and this must be with the correct timing and distance (maniau). Kata conveys this technology. Mitani Sensei says still many Japanese karate teachers misunderstand the form of kata with karate. Kata is only a style it is not karate. The technology of karate is called waza and although waza is in kata, the form of kata is not waza. Karate that has been passed on to the world from Japan is full of errors. It is clear that it is not useful for physical confrontations away from the dojo. For this reason, Mitani Sensei is completely uninterested in kata competition. He reluctantly teaches kata to his competitors, who have been successful in kata competition. He teaches two (2) kata from the original fourteen (14) of karate for the technology of kumite. They are Pinan Nidan and Naifanchi Shodan. He teaches the following kata for competition only and says he teaches them, as you would teach dance. They are Nipaipo, Oyadomori Passai, Matsumura Passai, Anan, Heiku, and others. Mitani Sensei says he is mainly teaching karate to children from five to fifteen years of age and at this level he feels it is enough to just learn Pinan Nidan for kumite. He thinks there are very few karate teachers in Japan who can understand Pinan Nidan. His students through this training won the All-Japan Junior Team Kumite title four years in a row. He only entered his students because he was challenged on his views of the difference between what he calls ‘traditional’ karate and today’s ‘modern’ karate. In Japan, he says, the teachers involved in sport karate don’t like martial art karateka because they are not successful in competition. The martial art karate teachers similarly don’t like sport karateka because they only know sport karate technology. Both groups are basically correct in their opinions, but neither understands that they are both practising the same karate that is not what it was intended to be. The teachers belonging to martial art karate do not realize that the original karate is a superior martial art. Similarly, the tournament technology of the teachers belonging to sport karate is stagnant. In short, their technology has stood still on the starting line while the technology of other karate groups in the world has raced ahead. In kumite competition, about 70% to 80% of the technology of karate can be used. His students beat the competitors from the four (4) major modern karate styles with the technology of karate. In kata competition, only about 10% to 20% of the technology of karate can be used. Most of the technology of kata competition is the technology of dance. This is the reason he does not favor kata competition. Training in karate is not about learning kata he says often. He also does not teach moving basics (ido kihon) which is a method developed by Shotokan teachers. In the Japanese mainland, training is wholly based on this. He considers that it is a mistake because students then cannot understand karate. Kihon is said to be ‘basics’ throughout the world, however it is the ‘basics for kata.’ I teach kihon for karate, not just for kata. Karate is not kata but the technology of fighting. I teach neither three-step (sanbon) nor one-step (ippon) kumite, instead I carry out the practice methods of the original karate. Throws (nage-waza) and jujutsu locks (kansetsu) are important in karate; these are called ‘toride’. Of course ‘toride’ is unnecessary in competition, but toride is very important within karate. Karate practice is centered on the makiwara he explains. There is no fixed concept in makiwara training. The makiwara is a training partner and all training partners can be described as makiwara. If you hit a bag, that is a makiwara. Even if you hit the air, it can be classified as a makiwara. The best makiwara is a human being as this is a training partner that can also attack and defend. The ‘makiwara’ is really a general term for a training tool. In boxing, there is a heavy bag, a light bag, a punching ball, etc. These things would be described as makiwara if they were connected with karate. The concept of correct timing and proper distance, i.e., ‘maniau’ training is practised by means of a makiwara. While power in a punch is important, the power to break things is unnecessary. The purpose of makiwara training is not to train the fist. This is the concept of using the makiwara in Shurite and in karate. In Japan, many think that the purpose of the makiwara is to make a hard fist but this is a big mistake. This was also misunderstood in other districts in Okinawa. In kata, we leave the punch extended in order to show the technique (waza) clearly. However, in makiwara training, we hit so that the punch bounces and we move our body at the same time as we hit. We practice kata and then proceed to makiwara training where we practice the timing of offensive and defensive moves. This is the training of karate as it is written in Itosu's ten teachings. Funakoshi sensei knew only kata and Mabuni sensei was the same. Therefore, they are not karate experts. Shitoryu, Shotokanryu and Wadoryu are descended from Shurite but because they have lost the technology passed down from Shurite, I do not consider them to be karate. Of the four major styles, Gojuryu is correct but it is different to the culture from which karate emerged. Itosu said that when you learn kata, study the oral teachings (kuden) simultaneously. Many of the modern karate teachers do not know kuden. They have not had the necessary instruction to qualify as karate teachers. This is why bunkai / oyo was created, to fill the gap in knowledge, and one of the reasons why we have karate ‘styles’. In kata we perform the middle punch (chudan-zuki) but the correct target is the enemy's head. Chudan-zuki of kata is actually jodan-zuki. This is the sort of information relayed through oral communication (kuden). A stepping punch (oi-zuki) is delivered before the front foot is placed on the ground. This is effective timing (maniau). It is the method of putting weight into a punch. There are very few people who have been taught oi-zuki correctly by Japanese karate teachers. There is no oi-zuki in the kumite of Naifanchi. Also another significant feature is there is no switching of the body. It is the front hand strike (kizami-zuki) that is used, with defense coming from the rear hand. This is difficult waza to apply in a kumite tournament. Therefore, I teach only adult expert players this method. The technical essence of Shurite and Karate is the same. Karate can be immediately converted into Shurite by kuden. When I see the Pinan Nidan / Heian Shodan of Shotokanryu, Shitoryu, and Wadoryu, I believe that Gichin Funakoshi, Kenwa Mabuni, and Hironori Ohtsuka did not understand karate. As an example, I will explain the most complicated waza of this kata, i.e. the last two actions of this kata. In shotokanryu, the mid-level knife hand block (chudan shuto-uke) is performed twice on the left and twice on the right at 45 ° angles. This loses the meaning of the waza. In shitoryu the lower parry (gedan-uke/barai) is carried out twice in shiko-dachi. This is not quite correct as shiko-dachi loses the meaning of the waza as well. Shitoryu mixed karate and gojuryu (heterogeneous technology) and for this reason, shitoryu is unpopular in Okinawa. In wadoryu, this section is performed with nukite in shiko-dachi. This cannot be called karate any longer. Shiko-dachi and nukite together is not the technology of fighting. Using shiko-dachi is merely imitating shitoryu. I do not understand the use of nukite here and it may have been a way to distinguish a ‘new’ style. Shorinryu shows the correct waza and it is the same as karate. The correct waza is the lower parry (gedan-uke) in cat stance (nekoashi-dachi). Nekoashi-implies a front leg kick, as in reality, the cat stance is not actually carried out. An enemy's testicles have been kicked while parrying his kick. The purpose of the technology of fighting karate is poking an enemy's eyes or crushing his testicles. Also the reason for performing this at 45 degrees suggests a side step. The technical essence of Shurite and karate is the same. Karate is immediately converted into Shurite by kuden (oral communication). The difference between Shurite and Karate is one of concepts as follows- Shurite Karate Jodan-zuki (face punch) turned into chudan-zuki (body punch- no hitting the face) Kaishu (open hand) turned into Ken (fist- does not crush eye, testicles) Little moving turned into more moving Kakete (hooking block) turned into Shuto-uke (knife hand block) Shiko-dachi (square stance) turned into Naifanchi-dachi (side stance) Jodan-uke (high block) turned into Chudan-uke (middle block) Let’s return to the Te of the pioneer Matsumura Sokon. I believe that Shurite and Fuchien Shorin are not the same culture. All of the Te from Kume Village, i.e. Nahate, Gojuryu, Uechiryu, etc. are Chinese Martial Arts or at least a subset. Probably, they are all wonderful arts. It is also said that Shurite is one of them, but I don’t agree. I believe that Shurite seceded from the Chinese Martial Arts and that Shurite is a Japanese martial art. Of course, its mother is the China martial art. It is the following three points where Shurite differs from others. 1. Footwork (continuous punches) 2. Speed (power) 3. Specialization to fighting (very rational, no nonsense approach) A lot of karateka take great pride in studying karate from one of these four major styles and this is a sad situation. Japanese people have promoted karate as a mysterious exotic martial art however, Japanese people intended no malice, and were deceived by their own seniors and believed that they were correct. Only a small number of men realize the true situation. Karate is not so special and it is not an eastern mystery. The sad truth is that karate is not such wonderful technology. The competition arena is less so. It is an ordinary martial art. There is no big difference in the method of fighting between the West and the East and boxing bears a strong resemblance to karate. Though they are alike, due to the technology of fighting, there is a big difference in respect for others because of the different cultures.  Thank your to Hanshi Patrick McCarthy for letting me publish this article here. For those interested why not visit the International Ryukyu Karate Research Society
Stepping/sliding & using the hips in KU By Patrick McCarthy, KU 9th Dan Stepping and sliding is all about footwork, leading control and balance displacement; Did you ever notice how abrupt stances are in much of modern karate? In old-school karate, the moving posture concept pre-supposes three possibilities: #1. That the effectiveness of striking can be enhanced with movement [F = M x A], #2. That evasive movement can be enhanced, and #3. In the event that the defender is being seized [*a lot of emphasis on this concept] that an opponent's balance can be more easily displaced; i.e., with an opponent seizing onto you, or your garment, the close proximity makes it easy to create a distraction [spit in the eyes, finger flick to, or seizing of, the testicles, etc.] and spin in/out or under the opponents arms and use the principles of leading control in a certain direction; hence making it easier to impact them [make them weak] before displacing their balance and finishing/or submitting them. The vibrant hip torquing exampled in KU is about constantly training the core with macro-motion; in conjunction with posture movement, it also helps strengthen the overall ability to better generate explosive force.  oday marks the birthday of Inomoto-Hanshi who is an exceptional technician and a major contributor to my understanding of Okinawan and Japanese Budo.
Inomoto-hanshi lived down the street from O-Chitose and although not his longest student (that belongs to Kugizaki Sensei) was his 'Tori' or "Uke' for most demonstrations. Raised in KyuShu in the aftermath of the war he often told me stories of how difficult life was with especially painful experience around malnutrition and hunger. Losing his father at a young age Inomoto-Sensei would join the Self-defense forces and become a major - the highest non-commissioned office post. As a child he trained in judo and thus was a favourite 'partner' for O Sensei during demos. Also when O Sensei was ill, Inomoto-sensei was there to work out the kinks in the masters aching body. During his early years in the 自衛隊 (Jieita), Inomoto met Chitose and began to train with him. At that time it was Inomoto, Kugizaki and later Sakamoto who were the deshi. Under Chitose, Inomoto would achieve the rank of Kyoshi, 8th dan. O-Chitose also gave the young Inomoto strict instructions to study kobudo and bring back his learning to the Hombu. Hanashi also trained in Jyukendo and held dans in a few karate groups - these are displayed on the walls of his office. Later the young Inomoto was stationed to Okinawa where he would meet O-Akamine from whom he learned kobudo. He told us of many fond memories of Akamine Sensei, with a towel wrapped around his head, making noodles and feeding his deshi after long practice. Often such dinners ended in songs! As his student you could definitely see the love and respect Inomoto has for Akamine Sensei and for kobudo. If you ever have an opportunity to see Inomoto sensei use a bo, you will understand what a 'bujin' really functions like. It was also during these years that he met his life-long friend Yo Dometrich whom he considered one of his truest friends and a great budoka. He use to love to tell the tale of the 'blue-eye' blonde who showed up with a big "hi" at the airport (she was in the American forces) when they met. Together they would have a massive impact on shaping the kobudo world. Hanshi went on to form his own organization JikiShin Ryu (Original or True Lineage Way) which did not deviate from the teachings he received from O-Chitose and O-Akamine. However, never one to rest on his laurels in his late 60s he began the serious study of iaido and became one of the top ranked and recognized swordsmen within the Zen Nippon Iaido Renmei. His organization in under the guardianship of his youngest daughter Mami who is an exceptional budoka in her own right. Her performance of Bassai is flawless! When sensei got promoted to 9th Dan, he was doing to throw out his very worn and 'dirty' kyoshi belt which had been one of a couple he had gotten as a present from Chitose. He was talked out of it and the belt survives. Happy Birthday to a truly exceptional human being! I am blessed that our paths met and I still continue to explore and unpack the lesson taught So what did you think you were practicing? - Vancouver Kowakan
I believe that ALL karate-do on Okinawa represents an amalgam of kata and training techniques introduced into the Ryukyus over a period of about 250 years. I do not know of ANY “PURE” system of karate-do (i.e. a Chinese Quan’fa lineage transferred in its entirety to Okinawa and perpetuated there by a succeeding generation of students). Some may argue that Kojo-ryu and Uechi-ryu represent comprehensive Chinese systems with a verifiable lineage introduced to Okinawa, but I do not agree. Legend has it that Uechi Kanbun, the founder of Uechi-ryu, received his teaching license from Shu Shi Wa (Zhou Zi He)(a tiger, crane, dog boxer). Uechi reportedly tore up his license after a fatal incident in which one of his students supposedly killed another man in some sort of dispute. Uechi reportedly felt somehow responsible for the death, tore up his license, closed his dojo in China, returned to Okinawa and vowed never to teach again. Certainly a very romantic story, but without any corroborating evidence it remains just that, a story. I am more inclined to think Uechi is an eclectic mix based on Uechi Kanbun’s studies. Remember, Uechi referred to his “art” initially as Pangainoon-jutsu (half-hard technique). However, NO style going under this name has ever been discovered, despite lengthy research trips to Fuzhou by the Uechi Karate-do Association. It more than likely refers to a common fighting principle found in ALL Chinese Chuan’fa systems (i.e. hard and soft). As for Kojo-ryu, I was once inclined to think that the karate practiced by the Kojo clan was a clearly delineated style originating in China. But now I am not so sure. It seems to me (at least) that its training methods and kata as well represent an amalgam of sources introduced over generations. But I stand to be corrected. To my knowledge, I do not know of any Chuan’fa style practiced on Okinawa with the exception of those styles introduced after WWII. If indeed Okinawans studied a Chuan’fa systems in its entirety, why then do none of them have teaching licenses from their Chinese teachers? Why do none of them refer to their art using the original Chinese names (e.g. white crane, white eyebrow, 18 Buddha hands, monk fist, yong chun (wing chun), hung gar, lau gar, five ancestor fist, etc.)? Just food for thought. With that said however, I do not feel that because Okinawan karate-do is heavily influenced by a mixture of different Chinese chuan’fa, S.E., indigenous sources, and Asian fighting arts, it does not deter from it as a form of civil self-defence. Through the centuries, karate has become a uniquely Okinawan and Japanese martial art in its own right. Unfortunately, many Okinawans and Japanese would consider what I have just written as blasphemy. Having lived in Japan for eight years, this doesn’t surprise me in the least as Japan is one of the most Confucianism countries in the world. Veneration of ancestors and the past is an important part of Japanese culture. Hence a connection to these elements is very, very important and is usually expressed in the karate world as an unbroken lineage stretching back to China. But there are teachers and researchers in Okinawa and Japan who do not take this perspective and see karate’s development in a very different and eclectic light. These would include: Tokashiki, Hirakami, Otsuka and possibly Kinjo. I am going to stick my neck out here a little, but what I find frustrating in the West is that there is such little information in English available on karate-do history. In the case of Goju-ryu the vast majority of this information has come from one source, Higaonna Morio sensei. I have met Higaonna sensei, and read his research. Besides being an outstanding teacher of Goju-ryu, his research is excellent. However, it represents only ONE THEORY. Unfortunately, since they do not have access to competing theories, many Western karateka take this as gospel. It would be nicer to have more information out there so that the reader can form his or her own opinion about the facts at hand. I honestly feel that people, for one reason or another, need to feel connected to something. Something larger than themselves. Having an unadulterated lineage provides this connection. Hence the idea that Goju-ryu (or any other system) can be traced back to the founder. This is even more so for the Japanese and Okinawans whose identity is very much dictated by group dynamics and group relations. Severing these by stating that there is no real connection would be like a form of solitary confinement. The political and social repercussions in the karate world would be severe IMHO. Good luck in your training and in your research Mario So my website is celebrating its 1 year birthday!!!! To help celebrate the event I have got permission from my good friend and fellow- Japanophile Mr Mario McKenna (and fellow irishman!) to share one of my all time favorite articles.
For those of you who do not know Mario or his work he is a well renowned translator and historian of karate and kobudo primary sources. Having lived in both japan and Okinawa for over a decade Mario's work continues to inspire those who have come across it. Currently resideing in Canada Mario continues to teach and explore Kobudo and Karate. I hope you enjoy and find as inspiring as I did this great article entitled: "So What did you think you were practicing" For those interested here in the 1964 Interview from Blackbelt Magazine (all rights reserved by Blackbelt) by Ned Paige interviewing Chitose Sr with translation provided by Tsuruoka Sensei. Of note within here is Chitose Sensei talks about his medical career and also some ideas around karate. Paige notes the charisma of Chitose.     One doesn’t have to study or be involved in ‘martial arts’ long before the myths start to appear. The Bodhidharma is organising the Shaolin, the mystical mountain hermit with secret Daoist techniques or the mythical visions that led to the founding of various ryuha. While both Japan and China have a rich heritage of such stories and indeed a great legacy of storytelling, such accounts must not be interpreted as historical fact.
In this blog, I want to explore two legends that raise their heads once in a while about Chitose Gochuku that require historical verification. Neither story is repeated in either of the works that Chitose authored. However, they appear in various places across the net and indeed in manuals which should engage with better historical research before passing on such legends. As I said at the outset of this exploration of Chitose’s life, the goal here is to return him to his historical place. I sincerely hope that those who head organisations following Chitose’s linage will provide evidence to counter what I believe is a more accurate historical presentation of O-sensei. Indeed I would argue that the two legends I explore in the coming blogs may have been intended to cast Chitose-sensei in an impressive light, however, in the light of day they may detract from his real legacy and character. The first legend is that in 1922 a 24 year Chitose having asked who was the greatest budoka in Japan he is pointed in the direction of Nakayama Hiromichi (中山 博道)(whose name is more commonly read as Nakayama Hakudou). The story then unfolds that the young Chitose went to Nakayama’s dojo and ‘challenged’ him. Nakayama with a naked blade faces off against the young Chitose until, after an hour or so, both realising the greatness of the other, they smiled and agreed that is was a draw and became life long friends. This historical evidence of this story, however, needs to be questioned. Firstly, the story is itself a typical budo archetype that can be seen from Yoshitune’s time through to Funakoshi’s experience with Kogura at from Keio University in the 1930s(see https://shotokai.com/gichin-funakoshi-sensei-informal-biography/). The idea of a brave budoka facing a naked blade has been and continues to be a part of the Japanese storytelling that unfolds in many manga and other forms of the popular press. The date 1922 is also relevant. According to Collins (https://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Dtimes/Pages/article33.htm) the young Chitose just returned to Tokyo after having quit his military job due to a severe case of typhoid. This is also the year when, under the invitation of Kano Jigoro, Funakoshi was invited to the mainland to help promote karate following his demonstration before the Crown Prince and other members of the military elite at various points in the early 1920s. The goals were to promote karate as one of the new Japanese Budo that would be a gift of Japan to the world (Funakoshi, To-Te Jitsu, 1922/25 (Trans) Ishida). It is hard to believe that Funakoshi, who was Chitose’s senior and teacher would have condoned such behaviour as Nakayama was a leading light in the revising of Budo in the new Post Meiji Japan. {For an excellent, researched account of Nakayama and the whole movement to revive Koryu and reframe Kendo, please visit Mark Tankosich http://www.marktankosich.com/ accounts of this era}. Nakayama was born in 1872 and created the Shindo (Shinto) Muso Ryu Iaido Ryuha. By the mid-1920s he was recognised as one of the great swordsmen of Japan and was a founding principle of the Toyama Military School. Moreover, as part of this school which also developed its style of swordsmanship, there were precise expectations that the sword should be used to develop the self, like a mirror that reflect the inner person. Indeed, after Japan’s surrender, Nakayama was a leading voice encouraging the Japanese not to lose heart and to understand that great bravery came from accepting their loss and in working towards a better future. He also urged the Japanese to treat the US occupiers with great respect for this reflected the soul of the samurai (Nippon Times, August 28, 1945, p. 2). Indeed these ideals led him to help for the All Japan Kendo Federation in the mid-1950s. Nakayama was a recognised 10th dan in Koryu Jodo, Kendo and Iaido. For a young Chitose to walk into a Nakayama’s dojo and challenge him would have not only made Chitose look like a country bumkin unaware of the political movements of his time, but it would also have risked the wrath of Funakoshi and other karatekas who were desperately trying to establish karate on the mainland. In Japan, one did not throw down a challenge to a man of Nakayama’s standing without risking social and political exile. Indeed the gap in the 1920s between the new karate movement and that of the Judo and Kendo dojos could not be starker. We know from Funakoshi’s biography that during these early years in Tokyo he worked as a custodian (Funakoshi, 1956). In contrast, we know that Nakayama was regularly performing for the Imperial family and the military elite. Karate was not yet on a ground where socially, politically or physically, it could take on a man on Nakayama’s standing. The other aspect of this story is that the young Chitose would have to have been pretty cocksure to take on a live blade in the hands of an expert such as Nakayama. For anyone, who has ever used a katana this is not something you would undertake lightly, especially for bravado. Moreover, he risked being arrested as such duels were illegal, and as an Okinawan, he would not have been judged well by the judicial system on the mainland. Additionally, there were other candidates who Chitose, had he so wished could have challenged such as Motbu Choki, who would shoot to fame after his match against the western ‘wrestler’ John Kentel. However, Motobu’s brother taught Chitose, and he was of a much higher caste that Chitose so challenging him would again, have been not acceptable. There were also his dojo mates at Funakosihi’s school or Judoka at the Kodokan to name but a few. If Chitose and Nakayama did have a meeting, the likelihood is that it was far more cordial than the current legend portrays. The young Chitose (who will not be awarded his Judan until 1968) was still learning his art and Nakayama would have recognised that. Given Nakayama’s standing and what we know of his as a person, he would have had too much to lose and nothing to gain by killing or injuring the young Okinwana. They may have faced off against each other, but chances are it would have been with a shinai (wooden sword) or bokken, and it was as a teacher and student, not as adversaries. Most importantly, that neither men mention this event and that is bears all the hallmarks of an archetypical Japanese story suggest it never took place - at least in the current guise presented. Besides the young Chitose also had much to lose too, as he would soon become a father for the first time. In my next post, I will explore the legend, although not as popular as the one above, that Chitose was part of the Japanese fighting force in China, and learned King Fu (i.e. Wushu or Quan) from a villager he befriended. Still learning the tools of the trade when it comes to SNS - hopefully the new layout is less clutter than the last
cheers J |
James M. HatchInternational Educator who happens to be passionate about Chito Ryu Karate. Born in Ireland, educated in Canada, matured in Japan Archives
June 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
