Dr James M. Hatch, EdD
  • Dr James M. Hatch EdD
  • Who We Are
  • Get In Touch
  • Dr James M. Hatch EdD
  • Who We Are
  • Get In Touch
Thoughts on International Education
                                                   ​Musings on Japanese and Ryukyu Budo

Categories

All
Budo History
International Education

Categories

All
Budo History
International Education

Karate: End of Year Thoughts

12/31/2019

2 Comments

 
So my 33rd 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!
2 Comments

That Photo! Revisited!!!!

12/1/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture

Originally I posted this article in December 2019. Since then, I have become aware of a video where the current Soke of Chito Ryu continues to assert that the man photoed at the centre back is indeed his father. That being the case I have spent the last three weeks, while in hospital, digging around documents to explain why or how we have got to this conundrum. Like so many things in karate history - it is layered.

Nevertheless, I have been able to track down the historical documents where the photo was published initially, identified actual problems with the photo and then explained why I continue to assert that the person in the photograph is irrefutably not Chitose Sr. I have added detail which I believe will be of help to those who genuinely are interested in the historical accuracy of Chito Ryu.

The Photo is from 1937 NOT 1936! This is the first major mistake most people make when they explore this photo. The photo in question is from a 1937 meeting to commemorate the establishment of the Kihon-gata in Okinawa (McCarthy, 2018). The photo first appeared in the 1938 publication Karate-do Taikan, edited by Nakasone Genwa with contributions from Hanshiro Chomo, Shimpan Shiroma, Choshin Chibana, Mabuni Kenwa and Shinken Taira - that is, most of the people in the photo! 

Taikan is a massively important collection of writings. It correctly identifies the origin of the photo as 1937; however, given that most people in the picture were also present in 1936, it is understandable how the mix-up by later writers could have taken place. Additionally, as there were numerous such meetings in the 1930s, it is not inconceivable that the date of the photo became mixed up. Indeed the sponsor of the 1936 meeting Ryukyu Shinpo Newspaper sponsored many such events as Okinawa tried to contribute to the nationalist agenda then sweeping Japan. 

It is important to note that both the 1936 and 1937 meetings had to do with 'standardisation' within karate. The more famous 1936 meeting was when the kanji used for karate changed from Chinese hand (唐手) to karate (空手). Additionally, the 1936 conference also established the addition of the suffix - do (道) to karate to help align it with the expectations laid down by the Botokukai (McCarthy 2018; Hokama 2007; Kinjo, 2011). 

The 1937 meeting from which the photos comes from as outlined in Taikan appears to be referencing is the one held on March 28, 1937, when the 12 basic kata were created and acknowledged by the Okinawan Prefecture Promotion Society (Hokama, 2007, p. 66). 

Thankfully Taikan, due to the work of Mario McKenna, is available in English via his 2009 translation entitled: An Overview of Karate (McKenna, 2009).

I have been unable to uncover when, in Japanese, the photo became associated with the 1936 meeting, but for English, it appears to be down to works by Richard Kim (citation needed).

Tracing its association with Chito Ryu is much easier.

In the 1979 Chito Ryu Karate-Do Nyumon Kihon, the photo is incorrectly identified as belonging to the 1936 meeting and identifies Chitose as the man at centre back. While it is conceivable that Chitose would have had many photos taken of him during this timeframe (for example we know he was a student of Kyan since at least 1926 -see photo below - McCarthy 2018, p. 205) - that he is the one in this 1937 photo is extremely unlikely. Below I outline some of the more pertinent evidence supporting this assertion.

POINT 1: The photo which is in Taikan identifies the man in question as Maeshiro Choryo (1883-1944) which in itself should be proof enough as those contributing to Taikan were also in this photo. More precisely, Nakasone, the editor of Taikan, was also a good friend of Chitose, so to believe he incorrectly labelled the photo is highly unlikely.

POINT 2: The Chito Ryu manual incorrectly identifies the photo being from 1936, when it originated in 1937. Suggesting those who made the assertion were unaware of the Taikan.

POINT 3: We have, thanks to McCarthy (1999), the translated minutes of the 1936 meeting and Chitose is not present in any capacity. Chitose not being there, it is not a great surprise. He was living on the mainland at this time, and the cost of getting to Okinawa was prohibitive. Moreover, many leading lights most notable Funakoshi, Mabuni and Uechi Kanei were also not at the meeting as they were working towards the development and recognition of karate on the mainland. Lastly, most of the people in the photo were the 'sempai' of Chitose and were at least ten years his senior, with most a good deal more than that! 

POINT 4: The recent Okinawa Karate Kaikan which exhibited this photo correctly identifies the person as Maeshiro Choryo (1883-1944) from the Nishihara Elementary school. The Kaikan is the offical, researched-based voice of karate history in Okinawa.

POINT 5: 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 picture is not.

POINT 6: If we compare photos of Chitose and the man in this photo we can see the man in the photo is FAR too old to be Chitose. Maeshiro was born in 1883, thus meaning he was in his 50s at the time of the photo while Chitose was in his 30's. Indeed a simple comparison of the picture, when magnified, reveals that the two men were unalike physically.

There are other pieces of evidence regarding this topic, but alas I won't get into it here. 

I trust that the evidence presented herein will, for those willing to accept historically grounded arguments, lay to rest the myth that the man in this 1937 photo is Chitose Tsuyoshi. 

As karate faces, unprecedented criticism from several sides having an accurate portrayal of its history is essential. Sloppy assertions will, in my opinion, do more harm than good. As I have argued here and in other forums, Chitose and his brain-child Chito Ryu can stand on their own feet. Neither requires mythmaking or exaggerated claims. While to do this in the past was acceptable and indeed, the cultural norm within Budo, we must now hold ourselves to a higher account. 

The onset of serious academic research into Martial Arts such as that being conducted at the University of Cardiff, to say nothing of the internet, are shining lights into areas of Budo which were once shrouded in mystery or downright misleading.  Areas which enabled manipulation of truth which in some cases was deliberately done to benefit the gatekeepers.

Those entrusted with preserving and developing Chito Ryu must ensure that they remain abreast of latest expectations or risk getting assigned to the history of quirky pastimes. ​


Selected Bibliography. 
Chito-Ryo (1979). 千唐流空手道 入門、基本編.
Hokama, T. (2007) Timeline of Karate History (trans. J. Swift).
An Overview Karate Do (1938) Ed. Nakasone G. (trans. M. McKenna).
Kinjo, H. (2011). 唐手から空手へ.
McCarthy, P. (2018) Legend of the Fist.
McCarthy, P. (1999). Ancient Okinawan Martial Arts (Vol. 2).
Okinawa Karate Kaikan Exhibition Pamphlet (2020)空手を伝え、広める!

​

Picture
1 Comment

    James M. Hatch

    International Educator who happens to be passionate about Chito Ryu Karate. Born in Ireland, educated in Canada, matured in Japan

    Archives

    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    December 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019

    Categories

    All
    Budo History
    International Education

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.