Rewriting History, Wiki Style
Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they maybe studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to defeat a person physically or to defend oneself from physical threat.
~ Wikipedia
Wikipedia’s simplistic definition begs the question: martial arts are martial arts. The statement itself is neither true nor untrue—it is a game rule—but it does reflect an ignorance of, or perhaps a malevolence towards historical facts. Taken at face value, it encourages a dismissive, one-dimensional analysis of the arts’ tremendous potential.
To avoid limiting our achievement in the martial arts, we should begin with an honest and dispassionate accounting of the past. What was the real original purpose of various “martial arts”?
The first clues may be found in our forefathers’ own speech and writings. The Japanese “martial arts” of Aikido and Karate were both systematized less than one hundred years ago, and there is relatively little controversy over their origins.
Morihei Ueshiba left no room for ambiguity when he described his vision of Aikido:
There is no enemy in Aikido. It is wrong to think that having an opponent or an enemy, or trying to be stronger than him and trying to overpower him is true budo. True Budo has no opponent, True Budo has no enemy. True Budo is to become one with the universe. The purpose of Aikido practice is not to become strong, nor is it to fell an opponent. Rather, it is necessary to have one’s heart at the center of the universe, then as little as it may be, help maintain peace among the peoples of the earth. Aikido is both like a compass that enables each person to realize his own individual destiny, as well as a way of unity and love.
Conclusion: Aikido, by Wikipedia’s definition, is no martial art.
Gichin Funakoshi
Not everyone in the Karate world appreciates Gichin Funakoshi’s assertion that “the ultimate aim of Karate lies not in victory nor defeat, but in the perfection of the character of its participants,” but they do acknowledge he said it. Apparently, Shotokan Karate is no martial art either.
While the historical origins and inventors of older “martial arts” styles are more widely disputed, the practices themselves discredit the martial arts classification—unless you believe Taiji (the metaphysical model) was created to justify Taiji Boxing, or that Ving Tsun’s most fundamental training method was conceived as a fighting stance, or that a bunch of genuine Buddhist Shaolin monks were obsessed with hand-to-hand combat.
Siu Nim Tau
Basic training of Ving Tsun Kuen
And we can look beyond China and Japan, to the so-called “martial arts” of other cultures. Capoeiristas are expected to sing and play musical instruments during practice. How exactly does this further the objective of “defeating a person physically, or defending oneself from physical threat”?
The historical data support one rational conclusion: martial arts are not martial arts, they are merely used as martial arts. The distinction is critical for its consequence: everything is potentially a martial art, and therefore every time and every place presents an opportunity for study.
Loading ...
11 responses so far ↓
1 Steve // Jun 14, 2008
Interesting article. I can agree that the definition you are rejecting is flawed, but I can see and agree with what the writer of that definition was attempting to say. Personally, I think that development of real, applicable martial skill is a fundamental characteristic of martial arts, whether or not those skills are ever used.
While soldiers may never fire their weapons in the line of duty, they train to do so understanding that if the situation arises where it is necessary, they will be able to. There are attempts on the part of their trainers to simulate as closely as possible the stress, anxiety and conditions of combat so that if the time comes, they will be as prepared as possible. The military also develops character, integrity and discipline. However, regardless of how disciplined or honest a person is, a soldier who can’t fight isn’t a soldier.
If one trains in a “martial art” that focuses on so many other things, such as character development, flexibility, flashy technique/style or whatever, to the detriment of martial ability, then personally I wouldn’t consider it a martial art.
2 Anino // Jun 14, 2008
“Martial” is something that has to do with war. War is bloody violence. If you think of a military tattoo or a ceremonial guard, they can do all kinds of elaborate movements in formation, and you may see soldiers twirling their rifles and passing them to each other through the air, etc. This can be really impressive and entertaining, but it has nothing to do with soldiering, manouvering or fighting with weapons. It’s art, but it has nothing to do with war - it’s not martial.
I don’t think of capoeira as a martial art, I see it as dancing, acrobatics and music. It’s probably good fun, but no one in their right mind would bring it to a war. Now, every language is incomplete in some way. In Swedish, my language, the usual term is “kampsport” which translates to “fight sports” - but not all martial arts are sports! “Martial art” now means anything you do ritually, athletically or artistically that in some way resembles fighting, but in my mind most of it is not at all martial. (Though it may be art.)
Becoming one with the universe? Sounds nice. But isn’t tantric sex, japanese flower arrangements and transcendental meditation also about becoming one with the universe? I’m more into developing my fighting skills, and that’s neither fight sports or martial arts. I guess some things are beyond language.
3 Chris // Jun 14, 2008
In theory, Wikipedia content is supposed to reflect a neutral point of view, rather than to serve as a catalogue of hidden agendas and personal preferences. In practice, human beings are not very good at neutrality, and this entry (like so many others in Wikipedia) has instead been filled with weasel words to obscure the authors’ biases.
By labeling these activities as “martial arts”, when these activities do not meet the aforementioned limited criteria of martial arts (and intentionally so!), what do you think Wikipedia is really implying?
Steve, that is exactly the point. A martial art that isn’t a martial art is nothing but rubbish.
Judging these activities by criteria that weren’t meant to apply, as the Wikipedia article implies we should, is an act of passive-aggression. It is analogous to changing the rules in the middle of the game, just because your favorite team is losing.
4 Rick Matz // Jun 15, 2008
A martial art is a training method. Training for what? Well, that’s a much larger and elusive question.
5 Chris // Jun 15, 2008
Rick, your recent post makes a good addendum:
It seems that Judo is yet another “failed martial art”!
6 Thomas // Jul 3, 2008
The Wikipedia entry is flawed, yes. However, the concept of “martial art” itself is personal to everyone that considers themselves as practitioners. Some people want fitness, some want enlightenment, some want combat effectiveness. I think that the beauty of this study is that it offers all three, and that we can (or at least should) practice for our own desires without blocking those of anyone else.
How would YOU define martial arts?
7 Scott in SF // Jul 7, 2008
Martial arts are movement practices which demonstrate prowess and communicate values.
Would somebody stick that in the wikipedia for me?
8 Chris // Jul 7, 2008
Thomas,
From IEEE 1016, a source of inspiration for this article:
“Martial art” is a design view! No architect would confuse a blueprint with a bridge, yet martial artists are always making this mistake.
Scott,
Wisdom borne from decades of diligent study constitutes “original research” and is unwelcome in Wikipedia, whereas quotations from Black Belt Magazine have a “reliable published source“. Embrace the void!
9 Thomas // Jul 10, 2008
I would think of martial arts as a collection of blueprints, so that you can make bridges, buildings, and all sorts of other things. Some people just want to build a barbeque, others wanna build the Le Tour d’Effiel, there’s something for everyone.
I’m not sure what you mean by confusing a blueprint with a bridge, though. Do you mean that some people confuse sparring with real fighting? I do see that a lot, but I think there are a good deal of people who know they’re just building models rather than actual buildings.
10 Chris // Jul 10, 2008
I offer the blueprint as a two-dimensional and incomplete representation of a 3D object, the bridge.
So, I do not claim that the Wikipedia definition is wrong per se, but it is something like confusing an elephant with a wall…then encouraging the extermination of live elephants, for their dissimilarity to the ideally conceived wall!
An Antidote for Martial Arts Poison // Jul 19, 2008
[…] lesser degree, the same is true of Japanese Karate-do, and many other commercially popular styles. Each of these practices carries its own set of values, each imperfectly aligned with the modern American definition of “martial arts”. It is […]
Leave a Comment