Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)
People in the community tend to lump everything under this one label, martial art. The community tends to get into some pretty interesting conversations when it comes to defining the term leading to as many definitions as there are styles and systems. In truth, as to its original definition, the one used as a lump-sum type label is valid, for this time and place and disciplines - for there are many.
Martial Art [武] The term in English-Japanese is "Bu." Bu and its character/ideogram are also translated to English as, "the art of war; martial arts; military arts; military force; the sword; valor; bravery; military officer; military man."
In Essence, although many use the term "budo," bu is the term for martial arts as well, as can be seen above, other meanings.
Caveat: this is a personal point of view with as much research as one person can do and, yes, it is adding to the cacophony of voices on the subject so take it, consider it if you please and then either accept it as truth or possibility or reject it as "not your cup of tea."
Budo [武道] these characters and ideograms translate to English as, "martial arts; military arts; Bushido." This is the unique characteristic of language with emphasis on Japanese/English because dependent on how one uses it such as how the Japanese use it; how the Okinawan's use it; how we use it and how other cultures use it. Like the old Isshinryu adage, "All bottles are good; they all serve a purpose."
Back to what I feel is the best definition to martial art. The question brings to mind, when was it first used? I did as much research as I could in both books and Internet as well as other sources such as articles, etc., only to find that the term or phrase may have not been used, much like the term bushido, until the very late 1800's and early 1900's. Bushido, in Japan and elsewhere, didn't really come into use until it was written about by, "Inazo Nitobe." It was something useful, for those times, for the Japanese war efforts.
I can't find anything definitive that says the term martial art was in use prior to that period. I can't find anything definitive that spells out the term or phrase and what the originators meant when using it. So, like almost all things of modern martial disciplines we are on our own and we can pretty much make up and use what ever way we want and it may be correct, for our time, place and usage.
So, in my use I don't really like using martial art but I do so that readers of my materials relate better to what I try to present. In truth, I prefer martial disciplines leaving the term art out of it so it takes on a more generic form better suited to the community.
I also don't use either to explain what I believe is Okinawan karate. I don't feel that karate, in its essence and original form, is a martial anything for I see it more a civil thing while martial disciplines are more about military systems relating to combat.
Combat being those socially and governmental sanctioned actions of war to achieve certain processes and to attain certain resources and objectives using violence governed by said governmental and world social rules and laws. Modern stuff for combat and war in those years that we assume developed martial arts was way different.
A dominant theme in the translation is military; military art, force, sword (related to early Japans samurai, soldiers of war in those times), valor, bravery, military officer and man, etc., dominating that definition. So, in truth, since everything taught and practiced in the martial communities is more about sport or some philosophical practices that leaves war, military and combat out the window.
War: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
Military: relating to or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces. the armed forces of a country.
Combat: fighting between armed forces. take action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable).
As people know nothing we do, no matter how we advertise it, in karate or other disciplines of a semi-martial nature is about war, military, or combat. All the terms, including martial arts, are more about sales, influence principles and compliance efforts than actually what each system or discipline was actually designed for, assuming we really know what they were originally designed for.
Martial art as a label today is a misnomer, not reality ... except ... like many things times, situations, cultures and beliefs can and do change those very things. With that said, Martial Arts "today, in this moment, and in these times as the community believes it to translate to or be defined as" is accurate and as long as one doesn't try to relate it as traditional, historically accurate or how the ancients used it, if they ever used it, would make it incorrect and inaccurate.
The reason I hit on these things is the whole, the combination of various things collectively used are believed to be true when they are not but singularly as stand-alone toward certain atomistic views then it may or might be feasible as a modern term or phrase.
This is why I advocate using terms as accurate as possible. Even so, even my mediocre efforts toward more accuracy is open to human fallibility so the effort continues, much like karate training and practice of modern philosophical efforts, to improve and correct and to be accurate as "humanly possible."
In short, martial arts as defined is a military combat war oriented term not usable as presented for what we train and practice today. Martial Discipline although more appropriate and can crossover isn't exact enough either. Bu or Budo or Bushido are also not the best terms to use either except as sales rhetoric but that won't stop either.
I prefer using self-protection, karate and other disciplines of like nature and other terms appropriate until I discover more appropriate and accurate terms.
It comes down to what we were given by our teachers, mentors and sensei but that has been found over the years to be a bit questionable, at least in the non-physical use of the systems and disciplines we practice such as karate. We accept that because in the true sense of such things those who came before more often than not have the "best intentions" of how and what they teach and pass down. I advocate questioning things even of those things passed to us from the proverbial "masters and grand masters" because, like my sensei's teachings, they have a ton of knowledge and understanding to pass down; the applicability of what they teach is always beneficial for that teachings intent in application be it sport or protection; and they are all human and therefore fallible so it is left up to the student to question, research and remove the chaff from the wheat so that what we do evolves and changes to be valid and efficient for our times.
Is all this going to stop folks from using all the various inappropriate terms? Not in the slightest because those terms changed and evolved to reflect the times, the training and practice environments and thus have become something appropriate for now. As to the connections to the ancients and traditions, well that is questionable and tenuous at best but we shall march on just the same regardless.
More on the subject of martial art:
Bibliography (Click the link)
No comments:
Post a Comment