Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
For what it's worth, the article makes mention of the fact that Okinawa is *not* part of Japan, and that karate was refined into its modern form (more or less) while Okinawa was occupied by Japan, since the Japanese forbade the Okinawans to own or use weapons.
|
Not really true since traditional Okinawan weapon systems survived as separate disciplines. They remain as such. The "could not use weapons" story is a myth, frankly, right up there with the Bodhiharma stories, or the popular beliefs that each style somehow comes from a Shaolin Temple.
Each major branch of what we call "karate"--which was originally understood as "Chinese hand" and pronounced as such--has its own origin, from Grand Pooh Bahs who either traveled to China--many to avoid the Japanese military draft or to just get work. These men tended to put together what they learned. They also were happy to compare and contrast what they did with other stylists. such an approach is antithetical to actual traditional Japanese styles--
koryu--which are practiced very differently than Okinawan karate systems.
The distinction between "Japanese" and "Okinawan" is as severe as that between "Okinawan" and "Chinese." While many Okinawan systems--at least the main three--claim origins in China, their practice and, frankly their base forms, are
not Chinese either. One might sit back and see, for example, how elements of White Crane are in some Okinawan systems, but the Okinwans systems are not White Crane. Similarly, one might see a connection between modern Shotokan and its original base system, but major changes--particularly in practice--were instituted once it became a "Japanese karate." That does not mean one is "better" or "worse," but in discussing such, one has to recognize the history.
Much of the Japanese approach that colors the practice of Shotokan--very militaristic with levels of students--the
kohei and
sempai stystem--came from university practice in which students were expected to serve in the military. Karate on Okinawa was not, and generally is not, practiced in that fashion. Hence the need to recognize the distinction.
Again, you have written an essay on a particular
off-shoot of Shotokan--a very fine off-shoot. To which I would recommend both the works of Harry Cook, Jr. and Jon Bluming. Methinks you should simply identify it as such.
Moreover, practitioners of some of the systems you briefly describe--like Judo--would take some exception to remarks such as it is practiced as a sport. That is the equivalent to claiming that Okinawan karate only practices for WKA
jiyu kumite--自由組手--"point sparring" rules. It is not the same thing. Sure, some Judo practitioners concentrate on competition--competition is an integral part of its practice. But there are large portions of the curriculum that are not in competition.
So, I suggest you concentrate on what you seem familiar with--KK--and title the essay as a description of that rather than of "Japanese Martial Arts Styles." That is far too broad of a topic for this essay.
--J.D.
References:
Bluming J.
The History of Jon Bluming: From Street Punk to Tenth Dan. Amsterdam: 2000
Cook H.
Shotokan Karate - A Precise History. 2001.
Cook H.
Karate Chronicles - The History of Karate In Okinawa & Japan. 2007.
[Edited to provide links to the references.--Ed.]