What's in a word - the value of language in the martial arts
In a conversation online the other day, the word 'warrior' was discussed in context of martial arts. Google 'warrior' and 'karate' or 'martial arts,' and you'll find no shortage of entries. Close to a million with the first two terms alone.
So, you ask, who cares?
Well, quite simply, you should.
The term warrior is defined by Merriam Webster as "a person engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict." While some may choose to take liberty with the last definition, many seem to want to try to apply the martial arts to the first. After all, doesn't the word "martial" mean war? Well, yes, but remember 'martial arts' is a western term. It is a rather liberal translation of the word 'budō' or 武道.
We don't make war. We are not involved in warfare. Competitions are not conflicts. They are sporting events that pit one individual against another. There are rules that guide the engagement. The prize for winning in competition is material. The prize for wining in warfare is you are not dead, but that does not mean you are not disfigured, maimed or crippled.
We deal in the notions and concept of violence. Violence, per Merriam-Webster once again: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; an instance of violent treatment or procedure. By destroy, we can infer 'kill.' Now, that sounds more like what we would deal with. Physical force. Used to injure, damage or kill. Yup. Bingo. Huzzah. So, if needed, we will match violence with violence. We will mete out a retaliatory use of force that will make you reconsider your current actions. Make no mistake. We are not warriors. The violence comes to us; we do not seek the violence out.
A warrior risks life. A warrior serves a purpose, whether you agree with it or not. A warrior has a noble spirit and purpose. A fighter, such as a boxer, wrestler, BJJ practitioner or MMA competitor, is not a warrior. They may claim to be. They may have it in their name. They may have it tattooed somewhere on their body. Doesn't make it true.
They are no more warriors than a chess champion or Olympic athlete.
The other ridiculous term is 'combat.' Mind you, this one does get some leeway sadly since the same folk I quoted above defines it as ": a fight or contest between individuals or groups; conflict, controversy; active fighting in a war."
But again, in my mind, it is a pretty liberal definition that starts with 'fight or contest.' A fight is not combat. They have some similarities, but they are not the same. People fight with partners. People fight in bars. People fight with their government. Three different uses of the word - none of them are combat-related.
Again, fights have winners and losers. But, normally, fights are not life or death. Combat? Well, you can live to fight another day, maybe you killed someone and maybe you didn't. But the likelihood of having killed someone is pretty high. It's you or them.
Back to the concept of 'martial arts' for a second. I cannot tell you how many people I have seen that equate martial arts with war, with some form or fashion of military violence. If one is speaking of sword arts of Japan and other countries, then, yeh, that's in the realm. But karate? Judo? on a battlefield?
Pardon me, but I have to laugh.
Yes, these arts can be adopted for use by soldiers for hand-to-hand. But, the key word is adopted. Modified. Tailored for use. But the Okinawans never used karate on the battlefield. It was not used to combat the samurai. If you are still buying or selling any of those premises, you probably would think that Mexico is going to pay for a wall, too.
I am disappointed by the folks who view karate as being a violent art. I loathe those that think if you cannot and do not beat people to a pulp on a regular occasion - or if you cannot cripple someone in two blows or less - including ripping out their windpipe or ripping their beating heart from their chest - then you are weak. I abhor the folks who seek to play up what they do as 'combat karate.' You may kick, punch, scream and do kata, but you're not doing karate. If you have no understanding of the principles of Okinawan karate, if you have no comprehension of how to manage and control your self, then nope, you are not a karate guy. Protest all you want, but you are the type of person who gives karate a bad name.
While we are on the topic of bad words related to Okinawan karate, if you use the word 'budō' in your explanation of your art, slap yourself for me, would you? Sure, in terms of J karate, it makes sense. But the Okinawans are not like the Japanese. With the exception of housing samurai and whatnot on the island since around 1609, they were not a warring people. Read some J history. And some Okinawan history, too.
The term 'bushi' has a very different connotation between Okinawa and Japan proper. The bushi of Japan were warriors - samurai. Okinawa did not have their own samurai. Okinawan bushji were more like 'gentlemen.' Then again, we have sort of touched on that topic here.
Insomuch that Okinawan karateka are principled, virtuous and should stand for what is right and just, we are like warriors, yet we are not. Yet, we should not be considered fighters, either. We don't or should not use our skills for personal gain or vain glory.
So here's a tip: if your goal is to become a warrior or to do combat, then join the army. Make the commitment. Go full bore. But, if you step on my floor seeking these things, you shan't be there long.
But trust me, there's plenty of people who will help you buy into your deluded, fantastical self-perception.
So, you ask, who cares?
Well, quite simply, you should.
The term warrior is defined by Merriam Webster as "a person engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict." While some may choose to take liberty with the last definition, many seem to want to try to apply the martial arts to the first. After all, doesn't the word "martial" mean war? Well, yes, but remember 'martial arts' is a western term. It is a rather liberal translation of the word 'budō' or 武道.
We don't make war. We are not involved in warfare. Competitions are not conflicts. They are sporting events that pit one individual against another. There are rules that guide the engagement. The prize for winning in competition is material. The prize for wining in warfare is you are not dead, but that does not mean you are not disfigured, maimed or crippled.
We deal in the notions and concept of violence. Violence, per Merriam-Webster once again: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; an instance of violent treatment or procedure. By destroy, we can infer 'kill.' Now, that sounds more like what we would deal with. Physical force. Used to injure, damage or kill. Yup. Bingo. Huzzah. So, if needed, we will match violence with violence. We will mete out a retaliatory use of force that will make you reconsider your current actions. Make no mistake. We are not warriors. The violence comes to us; we do not seek the violence out.
A warrior risks life. A warrior serves a purpose, whether you agree with it or not. A warrior has a noble spirit and purpose. A fighter, such as a boxer, wrestler, BJJ practitioner or MMA competitor, is not a warrior. They may claim to be. They may have it in their name. They may have it tattooed somewhere on their body. Doesn't make it true.
They are no more warriors than a chess champion or Olympic athlete.
The other ridiculous term is 'combat.' Mind you, this one does get some leeway sadly since the same folk I quoted above defines it as ": a fight or contest between individuals or groups; conflict, controversy; active fighting in a war."
But again, in my mind, it is a pretty liberal definition that starts with 'fight or contest.' A fight is not combat. They have some similarities, but they are not the same. People fight with partners. People fight in bars. People fight with their government. Three different uses of the word - none of them are combat-related.
Again, fights have winners and losers. But, normally, fights are not life or death. Combat? Well, you can live to fight another day, maybe you killed someone and maybe you didn't. But the likelihood of having killed someone is pretty high. It's you or them.
Back to the concept of 'martial arts' for a second. I cannot tell you how many people I have seen that equate martial arts with war, with some form or fashion of military violence. If one is speaking of sword arts of Japan and other countries, then, yeh, that's in the realm. But karate? Judo? on a battlefield?
Pardon me, but I have to laugh.
Yes, these arts can be adopted for use by soldiers for hand-to-hand. But, the key word is adopted. Modified. Tailored for use. But the Okinawans never used karate on the battlefield. It was not used to combat the samurai. If you are still buying or selling any of those premises, you probably would think that Mexico is going to pay for a wall, too.
I am disappointed by the folks who view karate as being a violent art. I loathe those that think if you cannot and do not beat people to a pulp on a regular occasion - or if you cannot cripple someone in two blows or less - including ripping out their windpipe or ripping their beating heart from their chest - then you are weak. I abhor the folks who seek to play up what they do as 'combat karate.' You may kick, punch, scream and do kata, but you're not doing karate. If you have no understanding of the principles of Okinawan karate, if you have no comprehension of how to manage and control your self, then nope, you are not a karate guy. Protest all you want, but you are the type of person who gives karate a bad name.
While we are on the topic of bad words related to Okinawan karate, if you use the word 'budō' in your explanation of your art, slap yourself for me, would you? Sure, in terms of J karate, it makes sense. But the Okinawans are not like the Japanese. With the exception of housing samurai and whatnot on the island since around 1609, they were not a warring people. Read some J history. And some Okinawan history, too.
The term 'bushi' has a very different connotation between Okinawa and Japan proper. The bushi of Japan were warriors - samurai. Okinawa did not have their own samurai. Okinawan bushji were more like 'gentlemen.' Then again, we have sort of touched on that topic here.
Insomuch that Okinawan karateka are principled, virtuous and should stand for what is right and just, we are like warriors, yet we are not. Yet, we should not be considered fighters, either. We don't or should not use our skills for personal gain or vain glory.
So here's a tip: if your goal is to become a warrior or to do combat, then join the army. Make the commitment. Go full bore. But, if you step on my floor seeking these things, you shan't be there long.
But trust me, there's plenty of people who will help you buy into your deluded, fantastical self-perception.
Comments