Around a decade ago, I attended a seminar with a famous Shanxi Xingyiquan master. Aggressive and direct, Xingyi is one of the few boxing arts known to have been used in preparation for organized warfare. Its emphasis on straightforward practicality was combined with enough subtlety to earn a reputation as one of the original Chinese “internal” martial arts.
After the seminar was over, I bought a T-shirt to commemorate the occasion. According to the text on the back of my new shirt, I was now an unofficial member of “The International Association of Defensive Martial Arts”.
Nevermind that we had spent the last 6 hours eviscerating each other with spears, sabers and bayonets, metaphorically speaking. Nevermind that, according to the principles of Xingyi and all other respectable combat arts, the use of purely defensive techniques is forbidden. Despite all this, in public, we were expected to present ourselves as practitioners of self-defense. Not offense. Why?
There are two explanations for this incongruity; as usual, one is popular and the other is true. We may as well start with the popular rationale: that martial arts were designed and intended for defensive purposes.
This is primarily a modern ethical assertion, disguised as a historical thesis, and consequently there is hardly any evidence to be refuted. Karate-do and Aikido, to cite two specific examples, are often represented as defensive martial arts today. Their founders’ own words reject this characterization. It is true that the arts were not to be used for starting fights; however, this is not because they were envisioned to be “defensive martial arts”, but because they were not “martial arts” at all!
The Xingyi Quan of the
Chinese Army
In regards to modern Xingyi, nobody carries a spear around for the purposes of individual self-defense. Nor were units of the Chinese army drilled in Xingyiquan for defensive purposes—the very idea of a defensive standing army is nonsense. And the history of other martial styles is similarly revealing.
Despite all this, the myth persists, among students and teachers alike. This is because the myth itself is a defensive tactic. First, it protects those under-qualified martial arts instructors who cannot successfully execute an attack against a savvy opponent: as the story goes, their art doesn’t work for that purpose because it was not intended to work.
Second, and more importantly, it protects the arts themselves from their most dangerous adversary. Martial artists, their organizations and their arts must identify themselves as defensive (i.e. harmless) to forestall any accusation of paramilitary or revolutionary activities. Offense is the exclusive domain of the state and its contractors, and the state does not enjoy competition.
This is not some wacko conspiracy theory. At various points during the last century, martial arts schools in China, Japan, Russia, and Cambodia were targeted as potential threats to their governments. Did these schools possess tanks and fighter planes, and other weapons of modern insurgency? No. They were assumed to be guilty of something far worse: cultivating a strong and independent spirit in their membership. In some cases, these arts were outlawed and their schools shut down; in others, the teachers and students were imprisoned or otherwise removed from society.
So all things considered, I must remain a proud and completely innocent member of the International Association of Defensive Martial Arts. Would you like to join us? We have a great T-shirt.
Receive free updates by email or RSS
14 responses so far ↓
1
Rick Matz
// Jul 20, 2009
When I studied Yoshinkan Aikido under Kushida Sensei, he said that the hostile intent of another constituted an attack.
2
josh young
// Jul 21, 2009
Battle field art verses martial art.
One is about attacking and killing as quickly as possible.
The other is about self mastery including defensive and offensive skill sets.
One is for the warrior, the other is for the steward.
One is for murder, the other is for protecting life.
Which one are you?
3
Chris
// Jul 21, 2009
“The peaceful warrior, with his life-giving sword” is a fantasy bordering on obscenity.
4
Josh Young
// Jul 21, 2009
And yet the Life giving Sword by Yagyu Munenori is a compelling treatise upon martial ethics!
5
Thomas Tan
// Aug 14, 2009
Like any other weapon, the ethics of martial arts lies in the user. Xingyi, Aikido, Karate; they are all a set of skills and methodologies, often coupled with some philosophy lessons.
It is my belief that the philosophy lessons are what makes an art “defensive” or “offensive,” similar to how both criminals and security guards carry firearms for different reasons.
6
Chris
// Aug 15, 2009
Criminals and security guards carry firearms for different reasons? I would love to hear the philosophical justification for that claim.
7
Thomas Tan
// Aug 15, 2009
Alright, I’m no philosopher, but I think there’s a pretty clear distinction between someone who carries a firearm with clear intent to take advantage of another person for self-gain, and another who wakes up in the morning not even thinking he’s going to need to draw the thing.
You can argue that yes, they both carry the tool for the purpose of threatening other people with its violent potential, but then, we all have fists as well. We use our hands for different things, even if they have the same destructive potential. It’s the intent and use that separates socially acceptable use from criminal behavior.
8
Marc G.
// Aug 26, 2009
I agree with what you’re saying in that the Martial Arts have ALOT of offensive tactics in them. they are not PURELY defensive. But, the origin of most martial arts (karate, kung-fu, jujitsu, etc…) was based around the idea that they would be used to protect an individuals life. There are of course exceptions (arts designed for military use in their time), but for the most part protection from attack was the name of the game. If the knowledge is misused, that is another matter also. But, that is an individuals abuse, not a reflection on the training as a whole. But, with respect to the offensive nature of individual techniques…you have to end the fight somehow, right?
Please take a look at this (explains my point a little better: http://actionkaratearts.com/traditional-karate/karate-what-is-or-isn%e2%80%99t-an-attack/
9
Chris
// Aug 26, 2009
Marc, if offensive technique is for ending fights, what is defensive technique for? Continuing them?
10
Marc G.
// Aug 26, 2009
Well, that is a good point, but in my limited experience, most martial arts techniques, if used solely for defense (i.e. a block is just to block), then that is pretty much what would happen. The fight would continue with you just defending, and not making any forward progress, i guess you’d say, toward ending the fight. But, even what are called “defensive” techniques, if used effectively, are most often offensive weapons of their own and will help end it. But, like I said before…the martial arts as a whole are meant for self-defense.
11
josh young
// Aug 26, 2009
Martial arts in general are often battlefield arts, not for self defense but for killing and maiming quickly.
However many of them hail from temple arts employed to protect monks and temples, including their precious artifacts and art, from bandits and thieves. However in most cases the temple martial arts were hidden in dance and ritual so as to prevent their discovery.
In the last 200 years martial arts have turned to self defense as a primary goal and concern. However many founders of common martial arts did not teach self defense: they taught soldiers and they taught them to kill.
12
Marc G.
// Aug 26, 2009
I am not an expert in all (or really any) martial art. But I am familiar with some of the history. And, at least, the more japanese (especially Karate were not originally battlefield anything. They were developed by peasants to defend themselves against bandits and the overbearing feudal lords that owned the country. Chinese arts have a different history, I know. But, if you go far enough back, you usually find the original developer’s primary intent for the martial art was to keep him safe and alive…not make someone else die. Examples: Shoalin Monks, Okinawan Peasants, Israeli Defense Force (Krav Maga…to answer the modern side of the debate)
13
josh young
// Aug 27, 2009
Okinawan arts have origin in White Crane type Chinese arts.
Those in turn hail from a Shaolin influence, Shaolin was a temple art and those have a long tradition going back to the origins of Buddhism in India. In all those cases the primary goal is self preservation, but they have all been employed as attack arts for battle at times.
Krav Maga is very much oriented at killing ones opponent quickly. It is a battlefield art. Israel is one of the most aggressive military states on the planet at the present time and if the bible is true then it has among the most violent and blood soaked history of any people. My namesake was not unlike Hitler, when he was said to have invaded Jericho and slaughtered every man, woman and child with the exception of a single prostitute. Not that Krav Maga is as old as all that, but it is very much a battlefield art and not very defense oriented. It is just irony that Israel uses the term Defense, their military policy is based on the concept of an eye for an eye, not defense at all but counter attack which is why so many Israeli soldiers have reported being ordered to shoot children in Palestine.
14
J.A.
// Apr 23, 2010
Marc G.,
About the Japanese martial arts. What you say about Karate is correct, but that is only one Japanese (are more specifically Okinawan) martial art. Most Japanese koryu were definetely meant to kill on the battlefield.
J.A.
Leave a Comment