It's the contextual premise stupid

"Hey man, I did all the other martial arts and (insert favorite martial art here) is the best man."

"(Insert despised martial art here) sucks bro. An MMA guy can kick ass on those dudes anytime!"

I often hear that kind of talk from people doing martial arts. First of all, it's the practitioner that's gonna make the art effective or not, not the art itself. And let's be real, not all martial arts were created equal! As far as I know, karate was not developed as a martial art to be used against other martial artists. Just listen to Okinawan karate master Choki Motobu:

"...the applications of kata have their limits and one must come to understand this. The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield. They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior." (pg. 96)

In other words, and in light of the research that karate historian Patrick McCarthy has done, karate was to be utilized against a person engaging in what he terms habitual acts of physical violence. Those acts are the contextual premise, the foundation on which the techniques in the kata were created to deal with. I think this is a crucial point to understand when talking about martial arts, especially with people who have no experience with it. Most people's general perceptions of martial arts, in my experience, is seeing it as "fighting". Now, although there is a thin line between fighting and self-defense, how a person trains for one or the other seems to require two different kinds of expertise. And you have to distinguish what you mean when you talk about "fighting". Because if you are talking about fighting where there are guns involved, then no martial art in the world will help you to stop a bullet penetrating your soft, fleshy human body. And if you are talking about fighting like they do in the UFC cage, then you are talking about training in a sport that has rules and regulations and guidelines. And if you are talking about fighting like in the "street" then I don't really think you need to take the time to study a martial art; just go insult someone's momma and see what happens. So "learning how to fight" is different to me than learning how to successfully handle unprovoked aggression. Both may require similar technical understanding, but which martial art is effective or not depends on what you want it to be effective for; winning points/trophies/titles/fame or survival? 

Elbow SMASH!
- Hiji Até

Thoughts on women, self-defense and karate

I have had the fortune of practicing the last few times with a new friend I've met here in the D whom I shall refer to as "Amy". Although she did not have any previous martial arts experience, Amy was enthusiastic enough to want to see what karate was all about and I'm glad she was because her presence has sparked a lot of thought. Amy, who could be described as a young white female, told me about an incident where she had been physically assaulted (groped) by a man. In her retelling of the incident, she said that she had sort of blanked-out and her body went "numb" as this was happening. Fortunately she was able to get away from this individual and escape, although she says she doesn't quite remember how or what she did to get away. What she does remember is feeling angered by the incident afterward. In response to my asking Amy what she might physically do again in that type of situation she said that the socialization she's had as a female makes her to want to "empathize" and thus "feel bad" about potentially hurting someone despite what they might be doing to her. That got me thinking about something Rory Miller highlights in Meditations on Violence:

"Don't be afraid to be rude. In the vast majority of these predator assaults, you did not ask for the attention and you have no obligation to the person trying to get close, no matter what he tells you or what your momma told you about being polite." (pg. 133)

Amy did end up enrolling herself in some self-defense classes which she said helped her to be more comfortable and confident with using her body in ways that would have seemed "rude" before. What's interesting is how she (unintentionally) delineated between having taken "self-defense classes" as opposed to having never done any "martial arts". That begs the question What do people think karate is? and How do karateka themselves define what they do? What's needed I think is a pedagogical model of karate that corresponds to the realities of women like Amy. Here's a female-bodied person who has actually had the real experience of being assaulted. Here I am, a student of a martial art and I have never had the experience of this reality that I am supposedly training to deal with. It's more like Amy could benefit from functional self-defensive skill more than me! The modern dojo environment in which I have trained is severely divorced from reality in that respect. What we do in the dojo has less to do with self-defense (the origin of karate) than it does with maintaining a kind of elaborate physical ritual. Where and how did we go from something useful, practical and effective (not to mention that karate is a holistic art so there is a spiritual side as well) to screaming paper tigers in white pajamas? I'm not implying that only females need this kind of functional skill. As a male, I know all too well what it feels like to not want to be rude and to empathize with someone else despite their aggression. But as a male, I am also aware of the fact that it is highly unlikely that I will be objectified and groped (or worse) on the street. That fact alone may be what saves me from having to be in those kinds of dangerous situations in the first place. I'm not saying that women need to do karate more than men. I'm saying that, in light of the contextual premise on which the karate of Okinawa was founded (i.e. habitual acts of physical violence), and because women are still disproportionately affected by physical assault/abuse perpetrated by men, finding a way to teach karate as was originally taught could be very beneficial to women in the 21st century. And beneficial to men as well considering that modern karate also tends to focus mainly on physical brutality and not spiritual development (a sort of prerequisite perhaps towards de-escalating internal male aggression). 

Elbow SMASH!
- Hiji Até

Is it because I'm Asian?

So I've noticed this strange phenomenon happen to me here in Detroit. To give you some quick context, I'm like one of 5 Asian dudes in the entire city. Okay that's totally exaggerating. But there really is not a lot of Asians here. Having this distinctly East Asian male face that I have, more often than not I tend to stand out in this predominantly Black city. Which doesn't bother me at all really. It has however contributed to numerous cases of mistaken identity: "No, no. I'm not Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee was Chinese. I'm Okinawan-Japanese." Usually those comments about my supposed resemblance to the late martial arts icon are from strangers and I'm no longer fazed by any of that stuff. But a similar kind of "mistaken identity" pervades the mindset of some of the people I've actually gotten to know. It usually goes like this: I'll casually mention to someone in conversation that I do karate. For whatever reason that gets construed to mean that I'm some sort of expert. I emphasize clearly that I am just a student and I've only been training for the last 5 years. That then gets construed to mean that I'm just being humble. I explain that it has nothing to do with being humble and everything to do with being real with myself. Then somehow that's taken to mean that I'm just hiding my awesome karate skills and pretending to be mediocre. I mean maybe there's some sort of satisfaction in having secret ninja skills to hide but the fact of the matter is I have none. Perhaps that's just too disappointing for people to handle. I'm reminded of the animated film Rango in which the main protagonist, an "ordinary-guy" type character passes himself off as a slick gun fighter only to be unmasked later on much to the disappointment of those who came to believe in him. Now, while I certainly haven't tried to pass myself off as any kind of martial expert, nor have I survived any serious life-threatening encounters here in the city, certain people still seem to think I possess some deadly secret skills. I mean, if I was some white guy who did karate would people still assume this much about me? It could be that I'm misconstruing something myself here and twisting their comments to mean exactly what I want to believe about myself. Of course, it's not like I don't want to be good with my karate (and that's subjective anyway), but these misperceptions frustrate me at times. Especially when people think that I'm supposed to be some kind of "good fighter" or that I can "kick ass". This is what I believe most people think of martial arts as being about. But "fighting" implies something far more different than what my Okinawan ancestors were getting at when they said things like karate ni sente nashi. Training to attack and defend against an equally trained opponent is not the same to me as training to deal with unprovoked aggression and physical violence by someone intent on doing us harm. I think both types of training engender different states of mind. I could be wrong, as I have no real experience with either fighting or self-defense. But I do see that there is still a serious lack of understanding about this "humble tradition" from Okinawa. I guess in the end it doesn't really matter what people think about karate. No matter what I say, people are still going to see in it what they want. And if being Asian makes a person's Oriental martial fantasies go wild, what can I do? I guess I gotta just keep being real with myself.

Elbow SMASH!
- Hiji Até

Iain Abernethy on "Angles"

I was browsing YouTube yesterday looking for videos to help me get an idea for some "Wanshu" kata bunkai when I came across this video of an Iain Abernethy seminar in Colorado. I have read Abernethy's articles on The Basics of Bunkai as well as his Introduction to Applied Karate e-book so I was familiar with what he was talking about. But I just had to blog about this because he reiterates something that is helpful in understanding kata:

"...the angle doesn't represent the angle the opponent's at, it represents the angle that you shift to..." (1:34)

What he's talking about is the angle at which you begin the movements in the kata. For example, when executing the "Pinan Shodan" kata, I would first turn my body to face left. The way I was taught was that I am turning to face an imaginary opponent who has come onto my left side. Abernethy mentions this also in the video about how we think that is what the kata is telling us to do, to turn towards the opponent. I am no great judge of the legitimacy of martial arts teachers but I can say that when something makes sense, it makes sense. And what Iain Abernethy highlights here about angles makes sense because, when looked at within the context of bunkai, being off the opponents line of attack is, as Abernethy says, "advantageous". But for those of us who are factory-farmed karateka (like I was) we might view what he's saying as sacrilegious ("Abernethy's a white guy! He doesn't know what the Okinawan masters were really saying!"). What's ironic for the narrow-minded-stuck-in-tradition-karateka to know is that Abernethy is just simply stating something that yes, even the Okinawan karate masters of old knew well. Take for instance what Shoshin Nagamine wrote in his I-highly-recommend-that-you-read-it book, Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters:

"...Seek to understand the value of angular movement. Never face an opponent directly, and learn body change through mastering foot movement." (pg. 102)

And that was something Nagamine Sensei wrote after contemplating the teachings of one of his sensei, Choki Motobu, another famous Okinawan karate master. So you know people like Abernethy must be onto something if even the Okinawan masters have said it! I mean, I'm not doubting Abernethy's insights. I'm just pointing out that his discussion of angles in the kata makes more sense than what I was taught (and hey, I was actually taught by an Okinawan sensei!). If I were to apply what I was taught, it would probably look something like this:

As you watch that video, ask yourself, "Do those movements make any sense for actual self-defense? Is that how I would actually counter a kick or a punch? Do people really attack like that?" What's interesting too is finding this same discussion of angles in other martial disciplines (like this). It kind of lets me know that this is a critical yet common-martial arts-sense principle.

I should mention here that what I'm blahging about is pretty obvious for those who are already in the know. But this blog isn't for those that know....it's for karate students like me who are finally waking up! But I think all karateka need to have an understanding of these principles if we should seek to bring our training in line with how reality operates (or go ahead and stay stuck in your tradition, doesn't matter to me).

Elbow SMASH!
- Hiji Até

A non-exhaustive list of resources for the Karate mind

What's up folks. The following is an online list of people/resources that I have been frequently turning to for guidance in my karate journey:

1. Jesse Enkamp

2. Patrick McCarthy

3. Charles C. Goodin

4. Rory Miller

5. Iain Abernethy

6. Angel Lemus

Particularly, it was reading articles by Jesse Enkamp and Patrick McCarthy that first blew the doors off my closed-karate mind. I remember feeling very overwhelmed and just aghast at how much I really didn't know about the art I had been practicing for the last 4-5 years. It was honestly very painful to read well researched information that contradicted nearly all of what I thought I knew. I found the other resources simply by researching deeper into what I was reading from those two individuals. The only "non-karate" resource is Rory Miller, although his insight is applicable across the martial arts board. And like, Enkamp and McCarthy, Rory Miller blew my mind with his two books, Meditations on Violence and Facing Violence (plus his blog). If you were ever interested in taking martial arts classes for "self-defense (like I was) then I would highly suggest you read those two books of his.

I should also say that most of what I am blogging about is stuff that the above list of people have already talked about in depth. I'm not pretending to be original with this blog. What I am doing is flexing my creative karate muscle and attempting to mold this blog into a potent synthesis of organic thought.

Elbow SMASH!
- Hiji Até

Overcoming fear

I've had my copy of the Bubishi now for a couple weeks. Fascinating reading. Great historical resource. Grateful that Patrick McCarthy has provided us English speaking martial artists with such a well researched and well translated text. As I was reading "Article 2" under History and Philosophy I came across the following passage that spoke directly to why I was at one time such a frustrated and disgruntled karateka (I still am in some ways):

"Lacking confidence about self-protection is the mind's subliminal message to the body that more training is necessary to overcome fear. Indomitable fortitude illuminates the darkness of fear." (pg. 104)

On a deeper level, I can see now that what I was searching for when I first walked into that karate dojo was something to help me "overcome fear". I imagine that being proficient/effective in personal defensive skills can be a huge booster to a person's innermost confidence and self-esteem. To a point where you feel you don't have to fight because you don't feel you need to prove yourself; it's the other person who has that need when they call you names or spit on you. Your deep knowledge of self, gained from your training, allows you to walk away from those "monkey dances" and to exemplify what Shoshin Nagamine says in The Essence of Okinawan Karate-do, "The ultimate goal of all martial arts is to defeat the enemy without fighting back." (pg. 82). Now that sounds all well and good and ideal, but the key point to understand here, for me at least, is that your training has to actually help you develop functional self-defensive skill. You need the "dō" and the "jutsu", the hard and soft, "go" and "ju", yin and yang. Your martial arts may be verbal (non-violent communication strategies) or they may be physical. I don't believe you can just develop one over the other or that one is more important than the other. They are both integral to the whole. And I say I imagine that being proficient in martial skills is a huge booster because well, I honestly don't know what that feels like. I only know what it's like to feel so shitty about yourself as a martial artist and a person so as to make you feel like you want to quit or beat-up on weaker people because it makes you feel stronger. Training in a "traditional style" in a "traditional dojo" has had the same effect on me as a public school student; I grew to have an intense dislike of school and its subject matter. I felt that the subject matter had no relevance to my life. It was just testing me to see if I had the competence to become part of the status quo of which I  have no desire to be a part of. I have a desire to know myself and my purpose in life, not how my round head can fit into a square hole. So I think we need to radically re-imagine how we teach karate/martial arts so that it provides the learner with relevant subject matter that they can apply in their life (the jutsu) and the space for them to grow into their own individual martial potential so as to help them gain a deeper understanding of self (the dō).  

Elbow SMASH!
- Hiji Até

In search of a living karate

Had fun training yesterday with my friend Andrew. After going through my usual warm-up routine, somehow or another we got into doing bunkai. Andrew has some experience with martial arts (I believe it was some style of karate) so he knew about the kata and the basic "blocks" and "punches". So I shared with him some of my recent knowledge gleaned from Iain Abernethy (mostly from his "The Basics of Bunkai" articles) about the "age uke" (rising block), the "shuto-uke" (knife hand block) and a particular sequence of movements from the "Pinan Yondan" kata. And we talked about how a "block" isn't necessarily what it says it is. Same with a "punch" or a "kick". Then I talked to him about how important I thought it was to understand what Patrick McCarthy calls the "contextual premise" of the kata, which is the HAPV (Habitual Acts of Physical Violence). I whipped out my little black book of karate notes in which I wrote down the "36 acts of physical violence" and recited it to him. From there we used one of those acts (single lapel grab) as the basis for executing the "rising block". One particular movement that Andrew said he could never figure out was the gedan uke (lower block). So using some of the principles of body shifting and weight distribution found in the "stances" as well as the function of the "hikite" (pulling hand), we experimented with how the "lower block" might actually be applied (which began to look less like a "block" and more like a set-up for a strike of some kind). I write all of this just to say that I found myself to be genuinely excited about what we were doing. It was actually "fun" to think about possible applications for kata movements. And in realizing that I was having fun (and when I say "fun" I mean to say a genuine excitement in learning, not mindless and haphazard), I realized that a "living karate" lies somewhere within this realm of literal hands on experimentation. I think the modern pedagogical approach to karate results more in"conformity" rather than "proficiency". The rote repetition of "basics" (at least my understanding of it as blocks, punches, kicks), while certainly great for conditioning the body, has more to do with producing a kind of industrial-model "one-size-fits-all" karateka rather than a "free, creative martial artist". I think that has much to do with the introduction of this art to the Japanese in the late 19th and early 20th century; a country that was transitioning from the feudal era into the industrial era. From what I can remember in my readings, the Japanese martial arts establishment at the time looked down upon this raggedy looking martial practice from Okinawa and sort of "forced" them into adopting a more streamlined approach and look. Thus resulting in the belt/ranking system, the white pajama uniforms, and even the mindset towards training (which again I think was more about making sure you conformed to the status quo through martial-sounding things like "discipline of character"). It was that Japanese need for "pounding the nail that sticks up" in order to have harmony in the society. I don't believe it's necessarily good or bad that these things occurred. But I do believe that learning karate in that way is less "fun" and more "dead". There's nothing alive to me about endlessly repeating what everyone else does in the dojo so that you can look like everyone else. There's nothing exciting to me about winning a trophy in a tournament for doing a kata that everyone else knows, except that you did yours "better" (and those standards are arbitrary man). What is exciting to me is the act of acquiring serious martial skills that deal in the realm of "life and death" rather than "winning or losing points". I mean, I think tournaments/competitive events are great and they have their place in the society, but I think the practice of doing modern karate today is like cleaning and polishing and holding reverence for a realistic looking prop gun. That's not to say it's a bad thing; I don't necessarily think people who practice kendo today need to go back to the samurai days and carry an actual sword around with them (while that may make sense in war on a battlefield, I don't think it makes sense in peacetime around the city or neighborhood). What I think makes Okinawan karate so adaptable for today's modern world is that, as far as my understanding goes, it was not created for use on a battlefield to know how to take a person's life. It was created for means of "civilian self-defense" in order to counteract the aggression of someone engaging in habitual acts of physical violence (which had the risk of death of course). Battlefield use and civilian use have very different meanings to me: the former connotes more of an ideological/willful intention to do violence; the latter connotes more of like the violence an animal might employ to get themselves out of a life-threatening situation. This is gonna sound off-topic but stay with me here: I think the industrial-model of societal organization has had the effect of making us "soft" or "non-gritty". There's no balance with the "hard" or "grit". We no longer till the land for vegetables, we buy them in bags at a grocery store. We no longer catch and kill the animal for our food, we buy it wrapped in plastic on a foam tray. While life certainly has been made easier by this model, I think it leaves us humans lacking in "what's real". And I'm certainly not saying I have lots of experience with what's "real" (I'm a middle-class Asian American kid from the suburbs), but I can sense that modern martial artists (myself included) are sort of toying around in the dojo with an idea or assumption of what violence is (I mean it's like you might as well sit at home in a Hawaii Chair™ while playing the 2D version of Karateka). But to acquire skills in something that is real (facing violence) and is guided by profound spiritual principles to help you see the web of interconnection that we all share (thus promoting a profound respect for life) not only seems "fun" to me but necessary in the 21st century. 

Elbow SMASH.
-Hiji Até