- Apr 10, 2008
- Reaction score
- Prince George, BC, Canada
maunakumu said:the bottom line is that the history really does matter. If you don't understand where the art came from, then you aren't going to understand the context to which the art applies.
Okay, before I start here, let me say this: Miles, if I took your comment out of context (no pun intended), my apologies.miles said:(my advance apologies for what is going to be severe thread drift!!!)
but if the context has changed (i.e. We are not in 1850 okinawa or even 1945 post-wwi korea but in 2009 usa/europe), then the art must change, right?
So why are so many folks locked into learning applications for 1850 okinawa? If you are training in the martial arts for self-defense, don't you think the student's time is better served practicing and discovering responses to today's habitual acts of violence?
In that case, why not get info from the fbi as to the most common street crimes and practice responses? Wouldn't that be much more efficient than trying to figure out boonhae from the korean interpretation of an okinawan kata? In fact, why bother with a martial art at all-just get a weapon.
Now, then, this comment came up in another thread, in order to avoid the thread drift Miles mentions, I thought I'd put this up in a new thread.
Reading this (speficially the paragraph about responses to today's violence) brought a question to mind: Is there really so much of a difference between violence in (using Miles' examples) 1850 Okinawa, post-WWI Korea, and today? Granted, guns are more prevalent now than before, but I'm thinking more along the lines of attacks that MA are designed to defend against. Wouldn't, say, defense against a knife wielding attacks be the same, regardless of the era?
As someone relatively new to actually practicing MA (as opposed to the years I've been fascinated by it), I'm curious what other, more experience people here think about that.