Karate His Story ≠ history

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.