isshinryuronin
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
- Messages
- 1,937
- Reaction score
- 2,133
This doctoral dissertation was interesting. Thanks for posting it. It brought up some good cultural considerations and questions. That said, I have some comments regarding a few (6) of the author's points, addressed in the order they appear.Here's a really interesting read I quite enjoy covering a number of aspects of karate's history... it's a bit of a longer read, but definitely worth it: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=jca
1. Following the Satsuma invasion (1609), "...there were many routes for Japanese martial art practice and implementation to enter the Okinawan culture and lead to the development of te..."
Two issues here: The first is that the use of the word "culture" implies a widespread commonality, while, in fact, (at least by early 1800's) much of MA knowledge was restricted to what should be called a "subculture" of the Peichin and/or military. The second is regarding "te," the indigenous fighting style of Okinawa. While he correctly hints that various S.E. Asian influences likely made their way to Okinawa, I believe there is little/no evidence how much of it was Japanese. For that matter, we really don't know much of what te actually was!
2. Concerning the Japanization of karate, "The system was reduced to punches, blocks, kicks and weapons." Kobudo, as an integral part of karate, especially Japanese Shotokan, was mostly a fairly recent recent thing, post-dating most of Funakoshi's efforts in Japan, really starting to be a thing thanks to Taira Shinken, the Okinawan "collector" of traditional weapons kata. While several masters, including Funakoshi, were trained in weapons, their teaching was mostly a separate track from karate.
3. Funakoshi was instrumental in organizing Japanese university karate clubs, whose members, according to one of his students, "...knew only kata, it was the only thing Master Funakoshi taught them...we all really needed the combative aspect that karate lacked." So, competitive sparring was introduced. "This presented a departure from the kata centric nature of karate as performed in Okinawa until that time."
Japan lacked the combative aspect, due to its now public education focus - it was much alive in Okinawa. What was missing in Okinawa was the competitive sport aspect. Rigorous two-man combative drills were still a staple there.
4. "Is karate then, as practiced in Japan, a Japanese martial art, rather than an Okinawan martial art?...then, can the karate conducted in the USA be considered an American martial art?" Good question.
To answer it, I'd propose the following consideration. There is no doubt Okinawa made its mark having originated karate. Japan made its mark as well, adding the "do" to it by incorporating more philosophical elements, making it into a sport and adding structure and curriculum. Has America contributed enough to karate as practiced here to call it an American martial art? IMO, this is debatable.
5. A working thesis of the article is, "...that karate coming to be practiced in Japan was a process of negotiation." In other words, Okinawa did not impose it on Japan, nor did Japan expropriate it. For reasons well explained in the article, it was a two way street for mutual benefit. What was not mentioned was that the Okinawan masters were not homogenous in their opinion of this negotiation. Some of them who initially supported it later lamented the changes the Japanization of karate effected, seeing Okinawan karate "modernized" into a lessor thing from their viewpoint.
6. I was struck by the fact that the author's long list of references is much lacking in the writings of Japanese and especially Okinawan masters who actually played a part in all this.
Many of these points can be topics for further discussion or debate. I did not intend here to criticize this work - it was a worthy effort - but to critique several points where I felt not enough "completeness" of the thought was included. But, then again, views of the art (even mine ) are subjective.