Honkaku karate [本格空手]
True statement?
According to what authority(it’s)?
By whose definition?
Authentic what karate, like traditional or modern or defensive or sport, etc.?
Authentic: having an origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy: of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine.
Unquestionable evidence?
Authenticated?
Verified?
Known facts?
These four are the concepts I utilized to validate the written claim that what is practiced today as karate is or would be authentic or genuine.
If one takes the facts as documented on the island of Okinawa thus knowing that there was and is no factual documentation as evidence available on the subject of karate as anything would depend solely on “word of mouth,” and we understand that what would be karate as practiced in the 1800’s was passed down by word of mouth to a closed group of Okinawan’s. Any documentation we see today was created by those currently studying karate, modern day interpretations, in the last two or more decades possibly as a means of selling a product called, “karate.”
Nothing that is dependent on almost exclusively word of mouth can be authenticated because each person in that chain is influenced strongly by their interpretation and beliefs, etc. making word of mouth “questionable at best.”
To be verified one must have definitive proof of historical nature that is authenticated in an accepted manner and even then just because a government or social entity says it is so does not make it so.
Okinawa social and political entities are subject to social and economic influences susceptible as the world wide interests involving travel so the proverbial income of tourism to experience “authentic” karate results in efforts to sell modern karate as authentic.
As to known facts, I began research in the early seventies and other than Americans writing books on kata or techniques there was little to nothing on Okinawan karate that hit on what was practiced or taught prior to late 1800’s to 1900’s.
In my humble opinion the materials today are wonderful “stories” and possibly a hint to what “might or may” be indicative of authentic karate.
I feel that one must add more descriptive terminology to clarify what is being said (sold) because … it matters and explains why so much is disseminated erroneously and incorrectly. Otherwise folks will judge by their preconceived beliefs and that isn’t productive or even accurate.
Note: when one says they practice “traditional” karate one must dig deeper to find what tradition are they speaking of?
No comments:
Post a Comment