|
In my last post, I discussed the need for karate to define its terms for us to have global conversations beyond styles. In this blog, I would like to propose that we also should refine our terms when we talk about eras in karate. What some folks call traditional karate, others call modern. I offer that currently, we are in the third phase of karate. What I propose, below, is a timeline grounded in the Okinawa origins of karate. Moreover, I combine Okinawan Kobudo and karate under the heading karate as formerly according to most researchers they were a unified practice.
Pre-1905 - the classical period. Currently, the historiography of karate in this period is most in need of research — researchers such as Joe Swift, Andreas Quast, Hokama Tetsuhiro and Patrick McCarthy continue to delve into this period bravely, however, the lack of written sources makes for a swamp. While oral testimony (supposedly) originating from this period is rife, the challenge lies in verification. During this period Kobudo and karate were for a select few, drawn from the upper class. This period is marked by moral compasses rather than 'rules' as if it works use it, appears to be the norm. Evidence draws from the Bubishi (the mid-1800s) and some written sources such as explore by Quast in his book Oni Oshiro and Swift in his recent book on Itotsu. The classical period witnesses cross-pollination of some Chinese, East Asian and mainland Japanese self-defence paradigms with indigenous Okinawan. Where, when, why and how this pollination took is greater need of research, but most likely it will fall to anthropologist to shed light on this era. Hopefully, in future with on-going work and development, this era can be meaningfully subdivided. 1905 - now - Modern karate. The emergence of karate marks this era into mainstream education and consumption. Drawing from the field of epistemology, this could be considered a structuralist period. Karate clothing, gradings and tournament parameters emerge. Rather than the reserve of an elite class, this is karate of mass consumption. This era is one of rules and standards and is specifically designed to make karate more of a sport or cultural recreation. These last 2 movements no doubt save karate (and other classical budo) from obliteration. The culmination of this era is the 2020 Olympics where, for a short point in time, karate is witnessed as a world sport. 1995 - now - Post-structural or post-modernist era. The watershed here is McCarthy's Tuttle publication of the Bubishi. This publication makes the text available to a global audience for the first time. It confirms for many what they had instinctively known - the essence of karate and Kobudo lie in understanding its kata. The energy of this period is a maturity of karate practitioners, a questioning of previous paradigms and a delving into understanding the blueprints of self-defence as embodied by kata. This era continues to shed light into the unlit passages of karate; however, the centre continues to hold. I believe using such macro-eras will help us further delineate and meaningfully discuss as move karate and Kobudo into the place they deserve as precious, cultural artefacts which continue to evolve and contribute to the times within which they exist.
2 Comments
So my 32nd year in karate is coming to a close. It has been an exciting year - one of modulated ups and downs. However, it was a year in which once again, I focused on karate and Kobudo. Watching the unfolding of discussions on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, there is excellent research being done to shed light into those areas of this tradition which millions of us worldwide do.
Nevertheless, in essence, what I do not see emerging is a shared meaning of what is karate. Aside from the use of uniform, itself open to interpretation, and general use of Japanese terminology, what constitutes karate remains open to the interpretation of the individual instructor. That the industry of karate is a multibillion-dollar one that remains, for the most part, unregulated no doubt contributes to the opaqueness of the term. Below, I informally present a few ideas around sign-post we may use to identify what constitutes authentic karate, as defined by historical context. Given the inclusion of karate in the Olympics (and its exclusion from future ones), the end of this years seems appropriate to consider the above. The key markers are: Karate must be grounded in self-defence. Any form that deviates beyond this principal as a founding stone cannot be considered karate. While testing one's mettle through competition may be helpful, it cannot be the essence of what is done. Karate should have its roots traceable to Okinawa. Karate is not only a form of self-defence; it is also a cultural artefact of Okinawan history. Any system which does not have a lineage to Okinawa cannot indeed be considered karate. It may be a highly effective form of self-defence or sport such as Japanese Kempo, kickboxing or other, but cannot be considered 'karate'. Karate must be a focus on empty hands and as such, should utilize all aspects of what empty hands can entail and do, including throws, chokes etc. An over-focus on the clenched fist is not historical karate as it limits the ability of one to self-defence. Part of the karate experience must involve Kobudo. Historically the two were unified and supplementary. Kata must be utilized as a primary vehicle for enabling self-defence learning. However, caution here and also a bit of controversy as kata must not merely be taught as a static form. Instead, its underlying principles and individuals nuances must be explored by student and teacher together. You will note that I have left off 'essential' items such as character development, use of Keiko go or even a dan system. As these were later additions or, in the case of character development, utilized to develop an individual perspective defined by space/place, they may not be essential to karate as a form of self-defence. Of course, as a Catholic, a teacher and a human being, I believe all we do should develop our character and as such karate can serve as a vehicle. However, such power given to karate must be done cautiously, especially when the teacher has exposure to the young or the easily influenced. From my years in karate I know this list can expand, contract etc. but what I am proposing is to start a conversation where we can at least begin to consider karate as a discipline worthy of academic exploration and consideration. To do this, we must first define our terms. I wish you all a healthy, balanced and joyous 2020. Keep your foot on the floor and your Kiai active!  OK nothing like a fine morning to get the ki flowing. I have been asked below if the photo above is Chitose Tsuyoshi (or Chinnen Gwa). The confusion comes from the fact that in the 1975 publication by the Japanese Chito Ryu SoKai they claimed it is indeed Chitose.
However, it is most definitely not him. The recent Okinawa Karate Kaikan which exhibited this photo correctly identifies the person as Maeshiro Choryo (1883-1944) from the Nishihara Elementary school. We have photos of Chitose with Nakasone (man to the far right, standing), Kyan (man sitting down, far left) as well as Miyagi. These photos show that Chitose was around the same height as Nakasone which clearly, the person in the photo is not. We also have the official records form the 1936 and 1937 meeting of the masters and Chitose is not directly involved. However, he was training with Kyan quite regularly during this period. Laslty if you compare photos of Chitose and the man in this photo you can see the man in the photo is FAR too old to be Chitose-sensei. There is a host of other information on this, but alas I won't get into it here. I will be publishing a small pamphlet on the early years of Chitose in 2020 and will let you know when it is complete. Of have a great day! James I often get asked what I would consider the most significant publications, in English, in the study of karate. While there are far too many great works now available, just see what you can find of Lulu. Here are my big five:
The Bubishi (translation) by Patrick McCarthy Patrick McCarthy The Downfall of a Ryukyuan Samurai by Joe Swift Dojo TokyoMushinkan An Overview of Karatedo: Translation and Commentary by Mario McKenna Budo Theory by Richard Rowell Oni Oshiro by Andreas Quast Andreas Quast For those who want to explore the foundations of where modern karate came from it is very hard to look past these works. McCarthy's the Bubishi was/is a ground breaker and still, IMHO is having a rippling effect on the karate world. McKenna's work is vital to understanding where the wires got crossed as Karate emigrated from the hidden sanctuaries of Okinawa to the mass University dojos on the main island of Japan. Oni, by Quast is a must read to understand not only the development of Okinawa, its poverty and yet central role in the seas off the coast of China and J, he also has made greater strides in uncovering the pre-1800 origin of karate. Swift's Downfall, may yet prove to be a ground-breaker too. In it he succinctly challenges image of the upper class Pechin with the lived reality, desperation and sad consequences which affected not only the upper, but all classes of Okinawan society. His historically accurate exploration of Kyan is yet to be fully appreciate for the liberation it gives all to question and explore the mythical narrative we have been force fed for too long. One of the great benefits of international education is the ability to work in an environment with people who come from various educational backgrounds.
A good friend of mine, Theodor is a trained Romanian physicist, a fantastic footballer and a genuinely great mind/soul/body embodiment. While Teo heads up our Science program and I work in a few roles we still find time to catch and chat about 'stuff', usually on the morning tea break. Recently, we have been discussing God, the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics and the need for an observer - yes, this is usually the kind of stuff we chat about. However, this past Friday, we had a conversation about our mutual concerns around the lack of 'freedom' and 'exploration' we now both see in education. Universities, although becoming more open to social and economic clientele have arguably redefined themselves as work-place preparation; a situation exacerbated by the ranking of them, along business model lines. Part and parcel of this movement have been a lack of pushing the new frontier of our knowledge. This mindest has filtered down to secondary education. In a 'publish or perish world' reproducing and revisiting established knowledge is a safer bet than going out on a limb, and such a mindset is likely to embed itself in the minds of students. If we explore academics and what is being produced, we find a reproduction of more in-depth explorations of items we have known about for a century or so. My field, education, is still being driven at a basic level by the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey all of who are dated. Likewise, Teo's field of astrophysics is delving into the frontiers already known such as QM, but not actively seeking out new ones. While there is no denying the excellent benefit in going deeper - surely it is time to explore new frontiers? What aspects of knowing do did we need to uncover? Given present trajectories, the whole area of ethics and moral development of our collective species requires work. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. The access to and speed of knowledge and its production have, arguably, outstripped our ethical growth; to say nothing of our ability to meaningfully process this knowledge. To know is not to understand, but to understand is to know. We can make choices about our now and our future - surely freeing up the current generation to push new frontiers is necessary, timely and ethically imperative?  Chitose Tsuyoshi (Chinen Sho) - A Man of his Time - Part 1
History challenges us. Not the ‘McDonald's’ version served up to placate an awkward past, special interest or simply to plaster over painful truths. I am talking about a history that forces us to look at the past as experienced adults and to accept that the past is complex, messy and often not what we wished it to be. One only has to look at recent macro events such as the Dutch reviewing their role in WW2, the emergent exploration by Irish historians of a past that was often self-inflicted and the rise of multicultural or feminist history where voices have been given to those once silenced. Such history seeks not to strip the past of its glory but rather to reveal it, in its struggles and achievements, it its challenges and the great effort it took to overcome them and to learn. Indeed history reveals that the leopard can and does change its spots. What I present below and in coming weeks has been over a decade in the wings. I have hesitated out of respect for Chito Ryu and for fear of causing offence or worse. Moreover, Chitose-sensei and his karate ryu-ha have deeply impacted my life and led to many gifts, not the least of which are family and friends. Nevertheless, among these friends are many who know all of what follows however, they are bound to silence by cultural norms and in some cases family obligations. Moreover, having spent time studying Chitose-sensei (i.e. O-sensei) I believe the incomplete history we now have of him does him a great disservice. Every day, all over the world people bow out of respect to him yet only some have actually spent the time to trace his footsteps through time. Indeed the story we currently have of O-sensei is colourless and fails to place him accurately within his time/space. He lived, survived and thrived in turbulent times the likes of which Japan/Okinawa and arguably the world had never previously witnessed. That he left us this fine gift of Chito Ryu deserves better treatment than a simple nod of acknowledgement at the start/end of class or a cleansed history. Placing O-Sensei as a man of his time who would, in his own way shape it, is to add flesh to an otherwise tasteless dish. History is not concerned with truth, it is however concerned with validity. What follows is what my research has uncovered. To this end there are footnotes where the reader can trace the argument laid out. Like many before me who researched O-sensei they relied heavily on ‘eye-witness’ testimony. However, unlike previous works I have sought to verify any statements made by cross-referencing them with other sources usually books, articles, other eye-witness accounts and thankfully photographs. This process in research is known as triangulation. It is my sincere hope that every and all assertions I make will be challenged with meaningful evidence. Moreover, as I will argue, the main bodies currently promoting the legacy of O-sensei are guilty of neglecting to present us, his students, with an accurate and meaningful history of the man. Likewise, they further detract from O-sensei by not ensuring the legacy he left us via his writings are translated into the language of his worldwide audience. Additionally this offering is meant to be read alongside other information provided on Chitose. In particular, the current study seeks to shed light into the life of Chitose up to the end of World War two as arguably after this date and his expansion outside of Japan his history is well recorded. Indeed, the fullest narrative I know in written in English is Michael Colling’s Chitose Tsuyoshi: A Bridge Through Time (2002) and published on the Dragon Times via their dragon-tsunami organisation. Intercultural Research - A Challenge Delving outside one's-cultural landscape can pose a challenge however, using various lenses and remaining culturally sensitive helps avoid many of these potential pit-falls. That being said it is also important to not view the other as something exotic and beyond understanding. To this end eye-witness accounts when delving into Japan, especially in its martial history carries numerous challenges. Aside from the language there is also within Japan, the notion of Honne/Tatemae. A loose translation of honne is true feelings/thoughts, while tatemae means the feelings/thoughts expressed to the world. In Japan, with its emphasis on ‘wa’ (harmony) tatemae holds trump. Adding to the obfusciation is the cultural practice of revering the dead. As a general rule to be truly Japanese the following these two cultural norms is arguably above all else. It is not too much of a stretch to see a correlation between the implications of these norms and the notion of ‘omerta’ in Spannish - that is to 'keep your mouth shut'. Moreover, some were asked by O-sensei not to tell his full story for he had been a bit of a rascal. However, with maturity and appreciation for what he left us I believe we are now ready to see the man for what he was: someone driven by a will to power that included sharing his karate knowledge with the world. Someone, who inspired others to be more than they believed. Someone, who through his ryuha enabled the coming together of different people from different walks of life and who ultimately enriched many lives. What I write below is well known in some Japanese circles however, there it may be impolite and culturally insensitive to speak about such things. While researching this topic I asked people who had the information and the evidence to write about it however, they declined out of a fear of people in Japan misinterpreting their intent as one geared towards smearing the name of O-sensei and their relatives. To help protect these people where I have not used their names to cite the evidence however, I have used other sources to support what they initially told me to be true. Indeed a primary example of this cultural norm at play is that it was only in 2018 that the ‘other’ history of Chotoku Kyan was told by Joe Swift in his groundbreaking text: The Downfall of a Ryukyuan Samurai. Using aritcles from 1898 in the Ryukyu Shimpo newspaper Swift uncovers the story of Kyan the prostitution broker and the scandal that, for a while, engulfed this father of modern karate. However, Swift's work rather than detracting from Kyan, is from a historical viewpoint, a meaningful insight into the challenges and fall from grace so many upper class Pechin experienced when Japan annexed Ryukyu and later abolished the ‘samurai’ class. The mythical past of this warrior class continues to confuse and mislead people everywhere, no more so than in Japan. A Man of Many Names - Okinawa to Tokyo Chitose was born 'October 18th, 1898, in the Kumochi area of Naha City. His father, Chinen (Masuo) Chiyoyu, took on his wife's family name as was the custom at the time but never took up the study of the Okinawan martial arts' (Colling; 2002). Throughout his life Chitose used at least 5 different names. This use of multiple names makes researching him more of a challenge than the norm. While some attempt to read a wayward reason for the change of name, the simple truth is many Okinawan’s at the time changed their name to a Japanese one and adopted Japanese dialect (McCarthy, 1999; Japan Times, October 22, 2016). Thus, the name change from Chinnen, a very common Okinawan name, to Chitose aligns the young Chinnen with others of his generation such a Maezato Shinken (better known as Taira Shinken) or Tominakoshi Gichin (Funakoshi Gichin). Indeed some Okinwan’s still change their names when they move to the mainland today. However, this assertion needs qualification. Currently we know he used only two surnames Chinnen and Chitose. Where some of the confusion lies is that he often used different kanji (Chinese script) for his first name using various combinations that could be read as 'Tsuyoshi' before deciding on the combination is his now most associated with. As an aside the name ‘Gwa’ Chinnen’s first name read as 小 actually means 'small' and could be a name of endearment or it could be real name. During this time, late 1800s there was very little legal documentation around names in either Japan or Okinawa so tracing his birth name is a challenge. Listed below are the lineage of names Chinnen used until finally deciding on the 'Chitose Tsuyoshi' one. Name in Chinese Script Phonetic Translation Years Used 知念 小 Chinnen Gwa. Birth 知念 直近. Chinnen Naochika. Used at the Keio University embukai with Funakoshi in the 1920s - date to be determined 知念 強直. Chinnen Tsuyoshi. Used between 1930s - 1940s 千歳 剛直. Chitose Tsuyoshi. Used in the early years in Kikuchi and Kumamoto - 1930s-40s 千歳 強直. Chitose Tsuyoshi/Gochoku. This became his official name when his friend Tsuruta Akira took Chitose’s 'new' name to the government offices in Kumamoto and registered it there. Sometime in the 1950's 千歳 強直 was the name Chinnen would use for the rest of his life. He would publish under it and indeed, it helped facilitate getting recognition as a 10th Dan on June, 2nd 1968. He was recognised thus by the All Okinawa Karate and Kobudo RengoSoKai. Above is a copy of his diploma: 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’. Postscript: There may be a need to better define what is meant by 'ti'. If Ti generally refers what developed in Okinawa as a result of combining internal grappling arts, Chiniese Quanfa, kobudo and JigenRyu then s are simply using the name 'ti' to represent what most historians refer to as 'traditional karate'. While what was exported to Japan's universities was a limited version of what was generally called TouDi or simply 'te/ti' to argue that 'ti' is a distinct marial art, outside of karate is misleading. Moreover, 'ti' is meant to be yet again another secret art that was not passed beyound a few and was never exported to the mainland or beyond then there is simply no historical evidence other that that which forms a root of modern karate. Simply adding another mytical, mysterious 'ti' to a self-defence system already conflated with mysticism and 'inner secrets' is disengenious, historically inacurate and potentially ethically suspect. I liken the current mysticism surriounding Ti to that which launched the Boxer Rebellion. The Boxers believing in the secret teachings and power of 'ti' launched themeselves against professional armies armed with modern implements. Sadly over 70,000 boxers learned that hand-to-hand technqiues and "qi' were not equipped to deal with modern warefare. 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. 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!!!
|
James M. HatchInternational Educator who happens to be passionate about Chito Ryu Karate. Born in Ireland, educated in Canada, matured in Japan Archives
November 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed
