There was a quote from one episode of NCIS, when Gibbs and DiNozzo were sparring in the gym, and DiNozzo asked Gibbs if he had "been taught boxing when in the Marine Corps" and that he should pick it up when Gibbs replied in the negative. After being pounded to the ground, Gibbs replied that the Marine Corps taught how to "fight".
I think it puts a lot into perspective there. Specifically, people forget that advanced Martial Arts are, still, arts. They're scripted maneuvers that are conducted under carefully organized and choreographed rules and regulations. Even sparring and tournaments aren't "Fighting".
I had a couple friends at Uni that did some MMA for a while. Specifically amongst themselves, just to pass the time. We introduced a new member of the group, a 9-year tournament fighter who had trained in Shodokan.
He got his ass whooped because he was trained only in Shodokan. He couldn't predict the maneuvers that my friend Vinny would throw in at him, and Vinny moved completely differently because he brought in his history of being a break-dancer.
When you take any aspect of a culture out of context it degrades and loses its form and function. Cultural preservation, then, is impossible. People want to hold onto some aspect of cultural purity, and they can't comprehend that it is impossible. When you strip it down, there's nothing recognizable left.
People get funky around the lack of weapons in modern Martial arts, too. There's some stupid concept of honor based on the weapons you use, or disuse. Somehow bare-handed fighting is more honorable than fighting with a weapon, and killing with a sword is different than killing with a rifle. The fact is, these weapons were all designed to kill. You can hide behind your katas or your stances and maneuvers, but at their core, they are weapons of war.
A sword is useless outside of warfare. Yet they are consistently thought to be superior in terms of "honor" to that of a rifle or firearm. Why? Because somehow the act of getting up close and personal to do the deed is inherently more honorable than doing it from range. It should be noted that bows are not considered to be, generally, a dishonorable weapon. Is it because they required skill? Does honor equate to skill? Not in my opinion. Honor is the equal to acting, to feeling, to thinking, and to moving in a specific code.
It should be noted that firearms are inherently more useful than a sword, too. Something that people like to forget in their fear of annihilation. I think people get so wrapped up into fitting into these tropes of perceived honor and duty that they neglect their own personal actions.
Also, the ignorance goes without saying. People want to rush to something new, damn the man for trying to get them to think about it. Ugh.
I think it puts a lot into perspective there. Specifically, people forget that advanced Martial Arts are, still, arts. They're scripted maneuvers that are conducted under carefully organized and choreographed rules and regulations. Even sparring and tournaments aren't "Fighting".
I had a couple friends at Uni that did some MMA for a while. Specifically amongst themselves, just to pass the time. We introduced a new member of the group, a 9-year tournament fighter who had trained in Shodokan.
He got his ass whooped because he was trained only in Shodokan. He couldn't predict the maneuvers that my friend Vinny would throw in at him, and Vinny moved completely differently because he brought in his history of being a break-dancer.
When you take any aspect of a culture out of context it degrades and loses its form and function. Cultural preservation, then, is impossible. People want to hold onto some aspect of cultural purity, and they can't comprehend that it is impossible. When you strip it down, there's nothing recognizable left.
People get funky around the lack of weapons in modern Martial arts, too. There's some stupid concept of honor based on the weapons you use, or disuse. Somehow bare-handed fighting is more honorable than fighting with a weapon, and killing with a sword is different than killing with a rifle. The fact is, these weapons were all designed to kill. You can hide behind your katas or your stances and maneuvers, but at their core, they are weapons of war.
A sword is useless outside of warfare. Yet they are consistently thought to be superior in terms of "honor" to that of a rifle or firearm. Why? Because somehow the act of getting up close and personal to do the deed is inherently more honorable than doing it from range. It should be noted that bows are not considered to be, generally, a dishonorable weapon. Is it because they required skill? Does honor equate to skill? Not in my opinion. Honor is the equal to acting, to feeling, to thinking, and to moving in a specific code.
It should be noted that firearms are inherently more useful than a sword, too. Something that people like to forget in their fear of annihilation. I think people get so wrapped up into fitting into these tropes of perceived honor and duty that they neglect their own personal actions.
Also, the ignorance goes without saying. People want to rush to something new, damn the man for trying to get them to think about it. Ugh.
Reply
Leave a comment