Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)
We can all agree that karate originated on Okinawa. YES!
We can all agree it may have been called “ti” originally. YES!
We can all agree that next it was called China Hand due to heavy influences from Chinese boxing. YES!
We can all agree that Japanese influences led to a character change in the kanji so it became empty hand. YES!
We assume that the original intent was simply refer to it as “ti” meaning simply hand, right? A set of hands WITHOUT a force multiplier/weapon.
Like in the military teaching eight hours of hand-to-hand because sometimes, rarely one hopes, you are without a force multiplier and need to know how to use your hands, etc., right?
Why then, do we assume the empty hands are fists rather than true empty, or open, hands because there are professionals in violence who KNOW the open hand is more effective.
We all can agree that both China hand and empty hand use “hand” instead of fist because the fist is only ‘one’ aspect of the hand in self-protection because the hand has many variations in use than the limited fist.
Why do we then assume the fist holds greater importance in karate then the hand? Because the focus seems to be the fist in karate then the reality of the hand ergo China/Empty Hand?
If the fist were the primary tool of karate doesn’t it seem logical that the naming would use fist instead of hand, i.e., karate to kara-genko that means fist; a hand with the fingers clenched in the palm? Once we clench a hand into a fist does it not become a singular weapon referred to as the ‘fist’ instead of ‘hand’?
We all assume that when we test in karate that being particular, especially about the form, etc., is part of the grading process so we can all agree that to do this properly there must be consistency. Consistency in the terms and phrases we use to describe our karate, yes?
We all agree that we can take subjects like hierarchy and heritage to a fine singular and accepted definition and history because of its importance to the past, present and future of karate, right? Why do we then give lip service to things like the disparaging difference between the fist and open or empty hand?
Is it possible that the importance of the fist, i.e., whether vertical, horizontal or twist, etc., came it to prominance because of the changes necessary to import karate into the Japanese and Okinawan educational system therefore become important as a safety for the young adults rather than the deadlier open hand methodology because most of the research and findings of those with the most experience as operators in the world of conflict and violence say that the open or empty hand has more to offer than the fist that tends to break (why boxers wear tape and gloves, not just to protect the opponent but to protect the boxers fists, right?).
Yes, as we all agree, the term karate fits, sounds good (better than kara-genko) and was the easiest to convert when the Okinawan’s sought out the Japanese martial art community validation, certifications and recognition.
Remember, empty hand is versitile, more so than the fist itself and as we already understand today the fist is merely a symbolic representation that was brought about through the conversion of karate, or Ti, for the educational system in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s. American’s are fist-to-cuff types so when we saw karate on Okinawa along with the training that includes the makiwara that just triggered our current belief systems and off the races we went because it was so much more exotic than boxing. I mean, there are reasons why the Chinese called their way of the hand Chinese boxing, right?
For reference and sources and professionals go here: Bibliography (Click the link)
No comments:
Post a Comment