Wow, in Karate 1.0 it appears that our thoughts that the weapons ban by both the Okinawan Royalty and the Satsuma Samurai did not ban weapons in the manner that left the common populace disarmed. I want to go back and read that again but it appears that most of the ban was about allowing weapons, firearms, to be sold outside Japan and Okinawa. I will clear this up a bit more as I take another look at what I read. I don't want this to become something that I misinterpreted but I wanted to get some interest going toward the book and its importance or its lack of importance.
There is more within those pages that discuss the possibility that karate, the empty hand system within martial arts, didn't come from the need of the locals to defend themselves against the Samurai of Satsuma. Apparently, the Satsuma took charge of defending the Okinawans against pirates, etc. The commoners were not striped of their weapons such as those that slash or stab, etc. It was more about firearms and controlling weapons aboard the shipping vessels that went to China, etc.
I plan on sitting down when I am done with my first study of this book and write a post that will provide a possible alternative to what some believe is the history and stimulus for the practice of empty handed martial arts.
Look at this entry as a "teaser" for another post and the need to at least consider this book and its role in understanding the culture and beliefs of Okinawan Karate.